Jharkhand High Court

Ajay Kumar Shreedhara Menon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 February, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           W.P. (Cr.) No. 728 of 2024


Ajay Kumar Shreedhara Menon, aged about 50 years, son of P.
Shreedhara Menon, having office at Motilal Oswal Tower,
Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opp. Parel ST Depot, Prabhadevi,
P.O.-Prabhadevi,       P.S.-Prabhadevi,      Dist.-Mumbai-400025
(Maharashtra)
                                   ....              Petitioner
                            Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Chandra Bhushan Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of
  Tripal Jha, resident of H. No. 103, Harmu Housing Colony,
  P.O.-Harmu, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
                                   ....                Respondents
                            With
                W.P. (Cr.) No. 749 of 2024


Gaurav Manohar Lal Manihar, aged about 48 years, son of
Manohar Lal Manihar, having office at Motilal Oswal Tower,
Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opp. Parel ST Depot, Prabhadevi,
P.O.-Prabhadevi,       P.S.-Prabhadevi,      Dist.-Mumbai-400025
(Maharashtra)
                                   ....              Petitioner
                            Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shri Chandra Bhushan Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of
  Tripal Jha, resident of H. No. 103, Harmu Housing Colony,
  P.O.-Harmu, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
                                   ....                Respondents
                            With
                W.P. (Cr.) No. 883 of 2024
                                                W.P. (Cr.) No.728 of 2024
                                                          With
                                                W.P. (Cr.) No.749 of 2024
                                                          With
                                                W.P. (Cr.) No.883 of 2024
                            1
                  Vikash Ranjan Sahay @ Vijay Sahay, aged about 46 years, son of
                 Sri Birendra Prasad resident of Flat No. 4408, Sri Radhe Krishna
                 Gardens, Rameshwarm Colony, Bariatu, P.O.-Bariatu, P.S.-
                 Bariatu, Dist.-Ranchi-834009
                                                  ....                Petitioner
                                             Versus

                 1. The State of Jharkhand
                 2. Shri Chandra Bhushan Kumar, aged about 46 years, son of
                   Sripal Jha, resident of H. No. 103, Harmu Housing Colony,
                   P.O.-Harmu, P.S.-Argora, Dist.-Ranchi
                                                  ....                  Respondents



                                        PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                       .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG : Mr. Jayant F. Toppo, GA V : Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA V : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate : Mrs. Ratna Prabha, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Aayush A. Srivastava, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. Since these writ petitions have been filed with a prayer to quash

the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Argora P.S.

With

With

Case No. 203 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code.

Hence, all these three writ petitions are disposed of by this

common judgment.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the said Argora P.S. Case No. 203

of 2024 was registered with the allegation that the petitioner of

W.P. (Cr.) No. 728 of 2024 being Ajay Kumar Shreedhara Menon is

the Director, the petitioner of W.P. (Cr.) No. 749 of 2024 being

Gaurav Manohar Lal Manihar is the franchise head and Vikash

Ranjan Sahay @ Vijay Sahay of W.P. (Cr.) No. 883 of 2024 is the

local person of Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited, have

indulged in unauthorized trading in the account of the informant

without the approval of the informant and by forging the

signature of the informant having opened the bank account in the

name of the informant in NSDL payment bank, without the

permission of the informant and the said bank account was

operated with a forged power of attorney purportedly executed

by the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for

the informant-respondent no.2 jointly drawing attention of this

Court to the Interlocutory Application No.1375 of 2025 in W.P.

(Cr.) No. 728 of 2024, Interlocutory Application No.1377 of 2025 in

W.P. (Cr.) No. 749 of 2024 and Interlocutory Application No.1376

of 2025 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 883 of 2024 submits that therein it has

been mentioned that the dispute between the parties have been

With

amicably settled. It is next jointly submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the

informant-respondent no.2 that in view of the settlement of the

dues, the informant has no grievance and the informant does not

want to proceed with the said Argora P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024.

Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding

including the F.I.R. of Argora P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024 be

quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has no

objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding

including the F.I.R. of Argora P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024, in view of

the compromise between the parties.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai

Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of

Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to

consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise

between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-

11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding

With

With

principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) "61. ... the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.

Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great

With

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)

7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this

case are neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of

mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the

criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the

parties which has been amicably settled between the parties. In

view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation

of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered

view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding

including the F.I.R. of Argora P.S. Case No. 203 of 2024 be

quashed and set aside.

9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R.