The High Court of Jharkhand recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi remarked that the High Court has the authority to quash a proceeding if it determines that continuing the prosecution will be a violation of the court’s procedure or if the ends of justice demand that the proceeding be quashed. (Rajnish Kumar & Ors. vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr.)
The bench observed, "The preservation of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal cases, is intended to accomplish a beneficial public goal: a court case can not be used as a tool of harassment or persecution."
Facts of the case
The facts of the case are Company has appointed or selected Genesis Sale Corporation as a CNF Agent and, thereafter the Company was intending to get back its stock from the Genesis Sale Corporation, but the petitioners have refused to meet with the informant and did not return the stock. The allegation was that 390 Pumps amounting to Rs.10.48 Lakhs was with them.
Subsequently, the said agreement was cancelled and the accused persons were asked to return the stock and, thereafter, F.I.R. has been lodged.
The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the F.I.R. registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case in view of the compromise taken between both the parties, which is pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi.
Contentions of the parties
Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 jointly submitted that now they have entered into a compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, this quashing petition has been filed. The said compromise petition is annexed as Annexure-2 of this petition. They further submit that they have settled the dispute which are arising out of the business rivalry and they are willing to maintain thegood relation in the interest of business.
They also submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C., which are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. They further submitted that this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
They also submitted that in the identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., where the case has been compromised, can exercise its power and the F.I.R. can be quashed. They relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji v. Radhika, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705.
Learned counsel for the State also accepted that the law is well settled given the judgment relied on the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party.
Court’s Observations and judgment
The bench while relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Shiji v. Radhika, wherein it was held that, “the offences under Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded.” Further, it was noted that “to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else.”
While allowing the petition the court observed that the “High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it concludes that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.”
The High court having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the compromise petition, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2, transpired, "both the parties have compromised the matter. In paragraph 6 of the compromise agreement, it has been stated that the second party will prefer a quashing application before the Court for setting aside the F.I.R. and entire criminal proceeding in which first party will appear through its lawyer and confirm the factum of compromise. In paragraph 8 of the said agreement, it has been stated that both the parties are doing business in same occupation and that is why they want to maintain good relation in the interest of business as now there is no grudge with each other."
The bench dismissing the petition noted, "In view of the above facts and looking into the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji v. Radhika (supra) and also in light of the fact that the petitioners and opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise, this Court comes to a conclusion that it is a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case No.342/2018 dated 30.10.2018 and entire criminal proceeding pursuant to that F.I.R. is, hereby, quashed.
Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and ,disposed of."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
