Chattisgarh High Court
Amar Parwani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2048 of 2023
1. Amar Parwani S/o Late G.K. Parwani Aged About 57 Years
Office At Geekay House, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District
Chhattisgarh, Director of G. K. Autowheels Private Limited
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station - Telibandha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Navin @ Alias Navindra Dubey S/o Shri Jainarayan Dubey Aged
About 43 Years Residing At, Rawatpura Colony, Phase - I, Last
Lane, Raavabhata, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh -
492013
3. Alok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shivsahay Yadav Aged About 24
Years Residing At, Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 18, Birgaon, Beside
Maharana Pratap School, Police Station - Urla, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional A.G. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.07.2024
1. Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Lukesh Kumar 2 Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:-
"(i) That this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in the case of Navin @ Navindra Dubey & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and quash all subsequent proceeding arising out of the said impugned order dated 09.08.2023, in the interest of justice; and
(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such further and other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
An affidavit in support of the present petition is being filed herewith."
3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner is a Director of G. K. Autowheels Private Limited and authorized dealer of M/s. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, Chhattisgarh. On 22.09.2022, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent No. 3 had bought a two wheeler scooter, being Activa 5G having registration No. CG/04/MS/5868 and the petitioner has fraudulently charged more tax amount from the respondent No.3 and the said complaint was supported by affidavit of respondent No.2. On 11.10.2022, the learned Magistrate issued a memo to the respondent No.1 regarding the complaint filed by the respondent 3 Nos. 2 & 3. Thereafter on 18.10.2022, the respondent No.1 submitted detailed report on the investigation carried out and stated that the respondent No.2 has not filed any complaint against the petitioner and also has not purchased any vehicle from the petitioner. It was further stated that a complaint was filed against the petitioner by respondent No.3 and оп investigation, it was found that no fraud has been committed by the petitioner against its customers. It is also reported that the respondent No.1 also stated that one Mrs. Sheik Shahnaz had filed a complaint against the petitioner and on investigation, Mrs. Sheik Shahnaz stated that she has not filed any complaint against the petitioner and her signature has been forged by her husband, namely, Mr. Sheik Javed, in connivance with respondent No.2. Mr. Sheik Javed stated in his memorandum he did not make complaint and it was forcefully made by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to extort the money amount of Rs.50 Lakhs from the petitioner. It was also mentioned that Additional/Deputy Transport Commissioner, Raipur on the basis of the said complaint has also investigated against the petitioner with respect to allegation of charging of excess tax amount and prime facie concluded that on perusal of documents, it was found that the petitioner has not charged excess tax amount from complainant. The FIR bearing No. 174/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 386, 504 & 505(2) was registered and charge-sheet dated 21.08.2020 was submitted before the Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, Chhattisgarh and the same is pending consideration. Vide impugned order dated 09.08.2023, the learned Magistrate without considering the report of the respondent No.1, allowed the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. As per past conduct of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, whereby the respondent No.2 in the year, 2020, had purchased a vehicle from the petitioner and after making the said purchase, made a false allegation that the vehicle has been sold to the respondent No.2 at a higher cost in an attempt to extort Rs.10 Lakhs from the said proprietor. The respondent Nos.2 & 3 further made threat to life of petitioner and also made unfavourable comments against the petitioner in an online platform, namely, Facebook, solely with an intention to extort Rs. 10 Lakhs from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.2 & 3, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr. P. C. which was allowed and an FIR bearing No.174/2020 dated 28.05.2020 was registered against the respondent Nos.2 & 3 along with other offenders for the offences punishable under Section 386, 504 and 505(2) of IPC. Thereafter, on 21.08.2020, the respondent No.1 filed charge-sheet bearing No.188/2020 before the leanred Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur affirming the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR and in the said charge- sheet is was stated that the respondent No.3 has absconded. It is relevant to state herein that the respondent No.3 has later on 5 surrendered before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 is perverse, illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind; thus, liable to be quashed and set aside.
A request letter under Section 65B Evidence Act regarding the CDR of the accused persons were sent to the Cyber Cell, after receiving sufficient evidence of crime under above sections against all accused persons namely Naveen Dubey, Sheikh Javed and Pramod alias Kallu, charge sheet number 188/2020 dated 20.08. 2020 was submitted before the JMFC, Raipur. After challenging the above, respondent No.2 had moved this Hon'ble Court in WPCR/655/2020 which was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy as may be available on 29.07.2022 after which the said petitioner moved to the Court of concerned JMFC under Section 156(3) of CrPC and in that case a matter has been registered against the petitioner, however, during pendency of the cases, after indulgence of common acquaintances and well- wishers, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably and have reached an agreement to withdraw all their complaint and cases pending against each other. In adherence to such compromise, the parties moved an application under Section 320 of the CrPC before the learned trial Court which was partly allowed and the offence under Section 504 of IPC has been compounded with permission of the trial Court. However, the 6 offences under Sections 386, 505(2), 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code being non-compoundable offences are still alive. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in the case of Navin @ Navindra Dubey & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 156(3) of CrPC of the private respondents and directed for registration of FIR against the petitioner.
5. During the pendency of this petition, the parties arrived at a compromise and entered to compromise-deed (samjhautanama) dated 21.05.2024 between the parties. Further, till date no FIR has been lodged and in support, the photocopy of the compromise-deed has been filed with covering memo dated 19.06.2024 and the original has also been produced which has been taken on record, today.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondent Shri Lukesh Kumar Mishra has also not disputed the fact of entering into compromise-deed between the parties.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of B S Joshi and others 7 Vs State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675, held as under : -
"If for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.
Thus, the High Court on exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code."
9. Further, in the matter of Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6, SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :
"29.4 On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5 While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
10. Further, in the matter of Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Honble Supreme 8 court has held:
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly 9 civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
11. Taking into consideration the fact that the parties have arrived at compromise and a compromise-deed between the parties has been filed with covering memo dated 19.06.2024 and the original 10 has also been produced which has been taken on record, today. Further, that till date no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner and also in view of the above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that object of law is not only to punish the culprit but to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the proceedings initiated by the respondents No.2 & 3 before the trial Court are hereby quashed subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the settlement-deed (samjhautanama) dated 21.05.2024. Ordered accordingly.
12. The instant CrMP is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Ravi Mandavi