Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 752 (JHR)

Bankat Garodia v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-27

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.4 to 6. 2. The FIR of GRD(M) P.S case no.312 of 2001 registered under Sections 420, 421, 379, 341 of the Indian Penal Code is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their monetary dispute resolved and have entered into a compromise. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as well as opposite parties 4 to 6 were in business term. In course of business, the petitioner placed order for supply of certain materials worth Rs.31,16,318.36 and even the money was paid in advance but the opposite parties 4 to 6 could supply only 53.495 M.T of materials worth Rs.6,50,854/-and therefore, rest of the amount of Rs.24, 65,464.36 was to be returned back and therefore, five cheques worth Rs.24,65,464.36 were given to this petitioner but subsequently, the case was lodged by the opposite party no.5 alleging therein that cheque book containing signed cheque as well as unsigned cheque got missing. In course of time, he came to know that this petitioner had presented the said cheques had been reported to be missing. 4. On such allegation, a case was registered. Upon registration of the case, the petitioner filed this application for quashing of the FIR. While the matter was pending, good sense prevailed upon the parties who got their monetary dispute resolved and have entered into a compromise whereby a joint compromise petition has been filed and therefore, keeping in view the fact that the dispute which was there in between the parties is personal in nature never involving any public policy, compromise filed be accepted and the FIR be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 4 to 6 admits that the parties have entered into a compromise. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances, it be stated that the dispute which was there in between the parties appears to be personal in nature never involving any public policy and hence, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the petitioner to face rigour of the trial. 7. Accordingly, the FIR of GRD (M) P.S. Case no.312 of 2001 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.