Orissa High Court
Umang Kapoor And Another vs State Of Odisha And Others on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2908 of 2021
Umang Kapoor and another .... Petitioners
Mr.Tushar Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Pradip Kumar Rout, AGA, O.P. No.1
Mr. Bitas Kumar Swain for O.P. Nos.2 to 6
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
25.08.2022
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the State and learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 to 6.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioners challenging the order of cognizance dated
24th December, 2020 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural),
Rourkela in G.R. Case No.828 of 2020 arising out of Tangerpalli
P.S. Case No.187 of 2020, on the grounds stated therein.
3. Perused the FIR at Annexure-1 and also the order of
cognizance, which is at Annexure-2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has
been a compromise between the parties and all the dues have been
paid to opposite party No.2, who have filed an affidavit and
considering the same, the criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.828
of 2020 should be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.2 to 6
submits that in fact there has been a compromise and the matter has
been settled between the parties and to that effect, affidavits have
been filed which are at Flags-A to E.
6. On perusal of the affidavits by opposite party Nos.2 to 6, it
is made clear that they have reached at a settlement out of the court
and claimed to have received the full and final amount payable to
each of them. It is further mentioned therein that the informant,
opposite party No.2 and others do not want the present proceeding
to continue rather expressed their unwillingness in that regard.
7. So far as the offences are concerned, it reveals from
Annexure-1 that Tangarpali P.S. Case No.187 dated 22nd October,
2020 was registered under Sections 120-B/420 of I.P.C. and Section
4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The allegations were that the
petitioners have collected the gold items from opposite party no.1
and others and sold it to others, who are not present before this
Court. Admittedly the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not
compoundable in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since parties have reached at a settlement, no fruitful purpose
would be served in allowing continuance of criminal proceeding
and therefore, it should be dropped.
8. On a perusal of the evidence, there is no denial to the fact
of compromise as claimed by the parties and opposite party Nos.2
to 6 stated to have received whatever amount due and payable to
them from the petitioners. It is settled law that in the circumstances,
notwithstanding the fact that any offences not compoundable in
nature, the Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. may quash a proceeding which entirely depends on
each particular case. The above view has been affirmed in the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
others Vrs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1990 SCR Supp.(3)
259.
9. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and considering the facts on record, since it is clearly
revealed that the dispute between the parties have been amicably
resolved, no useful purpose would be served in allowing
continuance of criminal proceeding and therefore, it should be
terminated and put to rest in order to ensure no further litigation
between the parties.
10. Accordingly, it is ordered.
11. For the reasons stated, the CRLMC stands allowed. The
criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No.828 of 2020 arising out of
Tangerpalli P.S. Case No.187 of 2020 pending in the file of learned
J.M.F.C. (Rural), Rourkela is hereby quashed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
U.K.Sahoo
