Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1550 (JHR)

Paulo Czarlariello v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-29

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The order dated 4.2.2011 passed in C.P. Case no.2164 of 2009 under which cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their monetary dispute settled. 3. It appears that a complaint was filed stating therein that the petitioners being the Directors of Rayban Sun Optics India Limited are dealing in the business of sun glasses and frames whereas the complainant appointed as its distributor. In course of business, the complainant has given certain blank cheques to the petitioner’s company as a security but those cheques were utilized by the petitioners otherwise. 4. On such allegation, a case was registered as C.P. case no.2164 of 2009 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in which cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in course of time, the parties got their monetary dispute settled and thereby an interlocutory application bearing no.1572 of 2012 has been filed wherein it has been stated that the parties having settled their dispute and they have arrived at compromise and on that basis, prayer has been made to quash the proceeding as the dispute what was there in between the petitioners and the complainant was personal in nature. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party also admits that the matter has been compromised. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party also admits that the matter has been compromised. 7. No doubt it is true that some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable, but the parties got their disputed which is personal in nature settled and as such, order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [ (2008) 9 SCC 677 ] wherein allegation was that the accused persons had conspired with each other and in furtherance of conspiracy they fraudulently diverted the fund of Andhra Bank by committing offence of forgery, but the parties in course of time got their disputes settled and then moved for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding before the Hon’ble High Court, but the prayer was rejected and when the matter came before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held as under: “In the instant case the dispute in between the company and the Bank have been set at rest on the basis of the compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the Bank have been cleared and the Bank does not appear to have any further claim against the company. What, however, remains is the fact that certain documents were alleged to have been created by the appellant herein in order to avail of credit facilities beyond the limit to which the company was entitled. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised. The dispute involved herein has overtones of a civil dispute with certain criminal facets. The question which is required to be answered in this case is whether the power which independently lies with this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pursuant to the compromise arrived at, should at all be exercised. Therefore, the court held as follows: “On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case [ (2003) 4 SCC 675 ] and the compromise arrived at, in between the company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technically should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings since in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at in between the parties would be a futile exercise.” 8. Here in the instant case, whatever dispute was there in between the parties, that was personal in nature which according to the parties, have been resolved and the parties have come to a compromise. In such situation, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed in view of the ratio laid down in cases referred to above. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 4.2.2011 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken in C.P. Case no. 2164 of 2009 is hereby quashed. 10. In the result, this application stands allowed.