Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Jha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2016
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1849 of 2012
--
Sunil Kumar Jha .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Koyeli Singh ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner :Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
For the State : APP
For the O.P. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
Order No. 09 Dated 30th June 2016
Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 06.01.2012 including the order dated 07.07.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2011 (T.R. No. 412 of 2012), whereby and whereunder, cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) has been taken.
The complaint petition reveals that there was an agreement between the petitioner, who was acting as a Director of M/s. Durga Developers (P) Ltd. and the complainant on 29.05.2011 for purchase of a flat. Certain amounts were paid by the complainant to the accused person and the sale deed was also executed but on account of a notice published in the local newspaper by Ranchi Municipal Corporation from which it could be detected that 4th floor of the alleged building is going to be demolished for alleged deviation of the sanctioned plan and therefore it was alleged that the complainant was cheated by the accused persons and also they did not return the money which was taken by them. On the basis of the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2011 was lodged and upon examining the complainant on S.A. as well as her witnesses, cognizance was taken by the learned court below for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of this proceeding there has been a settlement between both the sides which resulted in returning the money by the petitioner to the 2. opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel has referred to I.A. No. 4054 of 2015 which is a joint compromise petition between both the sides as well as the supplementary affidavit to substantiate his claim that the entire amount has either been paid to the opposite party No. 2 or has been deposited towards the loan which was taken by the opposite party No. 2 from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. It has also been submitted that the dispute is personal in nature which has compromised with the intervention of well wishers between both the sides and therefore the entire criminal proceedings including the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aide. Reference has also been made that pursuant to the settlement, an application for withdrawal of the case, which is pending before the State Consumer Redressal Commission has been filed.
Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and that she does not have any grievance if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed. It has also been submitted that the opposite party No. 2 does not have any claim against the petitioner as the payments have already been received by her and the loan account has also been cleared by the petitioner.
The joint compromise petition (I.A. No. 4054 of 2015) as well as the supplementary affidavit suggests that based on the settlement arrived at between the parties necessary steps have been taken by the petitioner to return back the amount to the opposite party No. 2 as well as to clear the loan amount which was taken by her from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Steps have also been taken for withdrawal of the case before the State Consumer Redressal Commission, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
Since the dispute is purely personal in nature and since the opposite party No. 2 does not have any grievance if the entire criminal proceeding is quashed, the entire criminal proceeding as also the orders dated 06.01.2012 and 07.07.2012 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2011 (T.R. No. 412 of 2012), are quashed and set aside. This application is accordingly allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) MK