Jharkhand High Court
Chakradhar Reddy vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 17 August, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 106 of 2015
----
Chakradhar Reddy ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rahim Farm ....Opposite Parties
----
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate
-----
08/17.08.2017: Heard the parties.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No.1323 of 2012, whereby and whereunder non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner.
The complaint case was instituted by Opp. Party No.2 against the Minerva Enterprises and the petitioner wherein it was alleged that for the purpose of starting a hotel in Banglore, they had applied for loan from the various nationalized banks and for the purpose of disbursement of the loan amount sanctioned, huge capital was required by them to be invested as their share being owners contributions for which they require money from private individuals other than the nationalized banks. It is alleged that Opp. Party No.2 had advanced money to the accused persons and in lieu of the same, the cheque bearing No.044589 dated 22.05.2012 was issued in favour of Opp. Party No.2, but the same was dishonoured, leading to institution of the complaint case being Complaint Case No.1323 of 2012.
After cognizance was taken, summons were issued. On receiving of the summons, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the learned court below vide order dated 14.08.2013.
It is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has already been paid to Opp. Party No.2 during pendency of the complaint.
When the present case was taking on 03.08.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that he is ready to settle the matter by paying rest amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 had accepted that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- had already been received by him and his grievance is only with respect to the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
In view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to Lod Adalat, in which, it was stated that the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been deposited. But since Opp. Party No.2 had to verify the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was adjourned and was directed to be listed today.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated what has been stated by him earlier with respect to the deposit of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, leaned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 has accepted that the balance of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been deposited through RTGS in the account of Opp. Party No.2 but it has been stated that the said account has been declared NPA. However, learned counsel for Opp. Party No.2 on instruction has stated that his client shall make arrangements with the Bank so that the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- accrues to Opp. Party No.2. Learned counsel further submits that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner, since the entire amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which has been taken as a loan by the petitioner, has been repaid to the Opp. Party No.2.
In view of the fact that the dispute, which is monetary in nature, has been redressed by the petitioner by returning back the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to Opp. Party No.2 and since Opp. Party No.2 does not have any grievance against the petitioner, the continuance of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner would be an act in futility and will lead to abuse of the process of court.
Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner including order dated 27.11.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in connection with Complaint Case No.1323 of 2012, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, this application is allowed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Ravi/