Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 140 (JHR)

Dindayal Drolia v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-22

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER By the Court.-This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Balidih P.S. Case No. 11 of 1985 including the order dated 21.3.1987 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468, 420, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others. 2. On the allegation that on the basis of fake and fictitious credit entries and also by way of having bank guarantees without any deposit of fund or margin money, accused persons misappropriated huge amount of the Bank, a case was registered as Balidih P.S. Case No. 11 of 1985. Having investigated the case, the police did find the allegation prima facie true and hence, submitted charge-sheet, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons including the petitioner who is one of the beneficiaries of the mis-deed committed by the Bank Manager. That order is under challenge. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was having an account with the opposite party No. 2 being C.D No. 265 in the name of M/s. Drolia Minerals Industries. When the Bank did find that outstanding amount is not being paid by the petitioner-company a Certificate Case bearing No. 20 of 1986-87 was filed before the Certificate Officer, Chas, Bokaro which was decided against the Bank. Being aggrieved by that order it filed a Certificate Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which got dismissed. Thereupon the Bank filed Money Suit bearing No. 7 of 1991. That suit was also dismissed on 10.4.1995. 4. Being aggrieved with that judgment and decree the Bank preferred an appeal being F.A. No. 51 of 1995 (R) During pendency of the appeal a proposal was given by the petitioner to settle the claim at Rs. 5 lacs towards full and final settlement. The Bank accepted the said proposal. In terms of the settlement, initially, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to the Bank as part payment on 28.3.2003 and rest of the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid on 12.4.2003. 5 lacs towards full and final settlement. The Bank accepted the said proposal. In terms of the settlement, initially, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid to the Bank as part payment on 28.3.2003 and rest of the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid on 12.4.2003. Upon payment of the said amount entire amount which was due to be paid to the Bank was liquidated and the terms and conditions of compromise was reduced in writing which was produced before the Patna High Court where the First Appeal was pending and the said F.A. No. 51 of 1995 (R) was disposed of on 9.9.2003 in terms of the compromise. 5. In the said background, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case needs to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2009 (3) East Cr C 209 (SC) : (2008) 9 SCC 677 and also in view of the fact that the case of the co-accused, namely, Rajendra Singh Choudhary, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra) has been quashed, vide order dated 7.2.2012 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 682 of 2011. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 2 and 3 admits that whatever dispute was there in between the parties, it got resolved and thereby whatever amount was payable to the Bank, in fact, that has been paid by the petitioner and therefore, the Bank is not interested in pursuing the matter. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that though the petitioner was not made an accused in the FIR but he was charge-sheeted by the police upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468, 420, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. Meanwhile, the Bank also pursued the other remedy available to it for realization of the money. While the matter was pending before the Patna High Court, settlement arrived at in between the parties, in terms of which payment was made to the Bank and thereby the outstanding amount which was there against the petitioner that got liquidated. And as such, the Bank does not intend to pursue the matter. While the matter was pending before the Patna High Court, settlement arrived at in between the parties, in terms of which payment was made to the Bank and thereby the outstanding amount which was there against the petitioner that got liquidated. And as such, the Bank does not intend to pursue the matter. In such event, the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra). In the case, referred to above, the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under : "In the instant case, the disputes 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 that 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 facts." Thereafter the Court held as follows : "On an overall view of the facts as indicated here-in-above 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 field 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 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, as has been stated above that the parties got their dispute settled and thereby the Bank is not interested in pursuing the matter. 9. Under the circumstances, it becomes expedient to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance as no useful purpose would be served allowing the petitioner to face rigour of the trial when the parties have settled their disputes. 10. 9. Under the circumstances, it becomes expedient to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance as no useful purpose would be served allowing the petitioner to face rigour of the trial when the parties have settled their disputes. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Balidih P.S. Case No. 11 of 1985 including the order dated 21.3.1987 taking cognizance of the offence is hereby quashed so far the petitioner is concerned. 11. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.