Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 608 (JHR)

Harish Chandra Tandon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-05-08

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER Since all three applications arising out of the same complaint case were heard together, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The entire criminal proceeding of C1 Case No. 1111 of 2000, including the order dated 15.12.2000, under which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/34/120-B of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties having settled their monetary dispute amicably have entered into a compromise. 3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had purchased 100 shares of M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd through M/s PCS Industries Ltd. After purchase necessary documents were submitted for transferring the share in his favour but in course of time, it could be known to the complainant that those shares have been transferred to M/s Biyani Securities (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Thereupon, a request was made to transfer the shares in his name but the accused persons did not pay any heed to his request and then a complaint case was lodged which was registered as C1 Case No. 1111 of 2000, in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/34/120-B of Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 15.12.2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of criminal proceedings, good sense prevailed upon the parties and thereby, they got their monetary dispute resolved and have arrived at to a compromise and a joint compromise petition has been filed by way of interlocutory applications bearing I.A. Nos. 1690/13, 1914/13 and 1923/13, whereby settlement agreement dated 28.1.2013 has been annexed with. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 also admits that the monetary dispute has been settled in between the parties. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the monetary dispute in between the parties being personal in nature never involves any public policy ended in a compromise and hence, criminal proceeding in view of the ration laid down in a case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (4) SCC Supreme 582 never warrants to be allowed to be continued. State of Punjab reported in 2008 (4) SCC Supreme 582 never warrants to be allowed to be continued. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the fact in the aforesaid case that the dispute being purely a personal one not involving public policy was resolved by way of compromise did hold that it is perhaps advisable that in dispute where the question involved is purely of personal in nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceeding as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the court grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. 7. Under the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceeding to continue with, as there would be no possibility of any conviction being recorded when the parties have settled their monetary dispute which is personal in nature and never involves any public policy. 8. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding of C1 Case No. 1111 of 2000, including the order dated 15.12.2000, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420/34/120-B of Indian Penal Code against these petitioners, is hereby quashed. 9. In the result, these three applications stand allowed.