Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 438 (JHR)

Sajid Zeya Khan v. State Of Jharkhand

2008-04-10

D.K.SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the quashment of the First Information Report vide Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2001 dated 6.8.2001 with consequential reliefs. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Puran Singh Chibb lodged a complaint case No. 526 of 2001 before the CJM, Dhanbad on 17.5.2001 which was forwarded to the Police Station for institution of police case under Section 156(3) Cr PC and accordingly a case was instituted as referred to herein above against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/406 and 379, IPC as also under Section 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement Act. It was alleged in the Complaint Petition that the complainant O.P. No. 2 had entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on 7.12.1999 for purchase of chesis of a truck and the agreement was executed at Dhanbad Branch of the Office of Leyland on accepting, down payment of Rs. 1,06,000/- (one lakh six thousand) from the complainant on the terms of repayment of loan on equal monthly installments @ Rs. 18,050/-. 3. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the Leyland Company did not supply the true copy of the hire purchase agreement to him though his signatures were obtained on some blank papers with the promise to use the same at the time of transfer of the vehicle after repayment of the entire installments. It was further stated that the complainant-respondent No. 2 had invested Rs. 1.59 lakhs in the body building of the truck for commercial purpose. It was alleged that though the complainant had paid the instalments as per schedule in each month beginning from 17.2.2000 but the petitioners refused to accept the money for the months of January and February 2001 on 27.2.2001 with ulterior motive and in the meantime the leyland company unlawfully and without any Courts order forcibly took the custody of the truck through their musclemen without giving any written information to the complainant and under violation of terms of Hire Purchase Agreement. 4. 4. The complainant further narrated that he got the Advocates notice served upon the petitioners on 23.4.2001 demanding the true copy of hire purchase agreement alleged to be not supplied to him by them and also in respect of refusal to accept the cheques tendered by registered mail on 23.4.2001 amounting to Rs. 18,050/- each with further allegation that the petitioners tampered the envelop carrying two cheques. Yet, the cheques were received by the petitioners in due course but without acknowledgement of the receipt. Finally, it was alleged that the complainant got another notice of the lawyer served upon the petitioners on 9.5.2001 and by the said notice the hire purchase agreement between the parties was declared void under. the allegation that fraudulent practice was adopted by the petitioners with false inducement to the complainant which caused wrongful gain to the petitioners and wrongful loss to the complainant/respondent No. 2. 5. Heard Shri K.P. Deo, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein. The respondent No. 2-complainant Puran Singh Chibb entered appearance by executing vakalatnama in favour of Shri Pratiush Lala, Advocate and I heard his learned Counsel. 6. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit duly affidavited by one Rajeev Kumar Sinha, State Legal Executive, Ashok Leyland Finance (now known as Induslnd Bank, Dhanbad) deposing therein that the instant writ was filed for the quashment of the FIR of Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2001 instituted against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/406/379, IPC and Section 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement arising out of a complaint case but the parties now have entered into compromise and, as per the terms of compromise (agreement), signed between the parties on 22.9.2001, the FIR lodged against the petitioners may be quashed in view of the fact that the alleged offences were compoundable in nature. The copy of the agreement of the compromise has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit (Annexure-16). 7. In support of that a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 admitting the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court and now the complainant had no longer grievance against the petitioners. The copy of the agreement of the compromise has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit (Annexure-16). 7. In support of that a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 admitting the fact that both the parties have compromised the matter outside the Court and now the complainant had no longer grievance against the petitioners. The agreement of compromise was signed by them on 22nd September, 2001 without threat, coercion or undue influence rather, to their free will and consent and the respondent No. 2/ deponent prayed that the FIR of Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 422 of 2001 may be quashed in the interest of justice. This counter-affidavit was signed by the complainant- respondent No. 2 Puran Singh Chibb duly identified before the Oath Commissioner. 8. Having regard to he facts and circumstances of the case and that contents of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioners has been supported by the counter-affidavit by the complainant-respondent No. 2 in support of the agreement of compromise between the parties on the given terms, the compromise agreement needs consideration. I further find that the case was initially instituted against the petitioners under Sections 379/406 and 420, IPC as also under Section 23 of the Hire Purchase Agreement Act. Admittedly, the Hire Purchase Agreement Act could not get the shape of statute as pointed out. As regards the offence under Sections 420/406 and 379, IPC are concerned, these are compoundable with the permission of Court. I find from the affidavit filed on behalf of the parties that they have entered into amicable settlement by executing an agreement of compromise on 22nd day of September, 2001 before the Notary at Dhanbad duly signed by the authorised signatory for Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on behalf of the petitioners and the complainant-respondent No. 2 himself with their signatures duly identified (Xerox copy annexed). The settlement of the disputes by A.D.R. is the call of the day and the Courts are encouraging resolution of disputes by compromise arrived through conciliation, permissible under law. 9. In the circumstances, I accord permission to the parties and hold that the complainant-respondent No. 2 is the competent party to compound the offence with the petitioners against whom the case for the alleged offences was instituted. 9. In the circumstances, I accord permission to the parties and hold that the complainant-respondent No. 2 is the competent party to compound the offence with the petitioners against whom the case for the alleged offences was instituted. Accordingly, the compromise is allowed and the petitioners Sajid Zeya Khan and Sajal Bhowmick are acquitted on the composition of the offence under Section 320(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.