Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1064 of 2023 whereby and where under, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420/34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the copy of the settlement deed arrived at between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, a copy of which has been kept at Annexure- S/2 at page no. 29-31 of the brief submits that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the parties have agreed to file joint compromise petition before the courts. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal dispute has been given to a pure civil dispute. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that otherwise also the dispute is relating to payment regarding business transaction and there is no allegation against the petitioners of either having any intention to deceive the opposite party no.2 since the beginning of the transaction between them nor there is any allegation of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property by the petitioners therefore, neither the offence punishable under Section 420 nor the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition in view of the settlement between the parties.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-
11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012)
10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)
“61. … 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)
7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the criminal case is a result of business transaction between the parties which has been amicably settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. Otherwise also, in the absence of any allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner has the intention to deceive since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made out. In the absence of any allegation of any dishonest misappropriation of entrusted property against the petitioner, the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is not made. It is apparent that the dispute between the parties basically a civil dispute and a cloak of criminal case has been given to a civil dispute.
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1064 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chas P.S. Case No. 179 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1064 of 2023 is quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
