Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 330 (CHH)

Vikas Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-09-02

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER 1. By way of the instant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the Petitioner has sought for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 178/2014 registered in Police Station - Pendra, District - Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., and the consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5. Facts of the case as projected are that a report was lodged by Respondent No. 5, Khurendra Singh, vide F.I.R. No. 178/2014 at Police Station-Pendra (Bilaspur) on 20.8.2014, against the Petitioner, stating that on 8.4.2014 the Respondent No. 5 had entered into an agreement to sale of a vehicle (Tractor-Trolley, bearing Registration No. CG 10-A/5751-5752) with the Petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 3,40,000/- and, accordingly, he had paid an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Petitioner and the possession of the said Tractor-Trolley was handed over to the Respondent No. 5 and it was held in the said agreement that the balance amount of Rs. 45,000/- would be paid by the purchaser/Respondent No. 5 within a period of five months to the seller/Petitioner. Thereafter, it is said that the Respondent No. 5 came to know that the said Tractor-Trolley was not in the name of the Petitioner, but the original owner of the said Tractor-Trolley is one Shivlal Shandilya and that the Petitioner had also entered into an agreement to sale on 7.3.2014 in respect of the same Tractor-Trolley with the said Shivlal Shandilya and that the said original owner Shivlal Shandilya was not willing to transfer the said Tractor-Trolley in the name of Respondent No. 5. Subsequently, when the Respondent No. 5 inquired about this from the Petitioner, the Petitioner told him that only transfer of names has been remained to be done between the Petitioner and the said original owner Shivlal Shandilya in respect of the said Tractor-Trolley and if at all if the Respondent No. 5 has any doubt or apprehension about this, he (the Petitioner) is ready to pay back the advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was taken by him from the Respondent No. 5 as per the said agreement to sale in respect of the said Tractor-Trolley. Accordingly, the Petitioner has thereafter paid back a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- through Cheque No. 524498, on 23.4.2014, and another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was taken by him from the Respondent No. 5 as per the said agreement to sale in respect of the said Tractor-Trolley. Accordingly, the Petitioner has thereafter paid back a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- through Cheque No. 524498, on 23.4.2014, and another sum of Rs. 65,000/- through Cheque No. 524499, on 1.5.2014, to the Respondent No. 5, and it is said that the balance amount was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 5 by cash. However, it is said that when the Petitioner had not able to pay the amount to Respondent No. 5 in time, the Respondent No. 5 in between had lodged a report against the Petitioner. However, in between, the Petitioner is said to have paid the entire balance amount to Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 moved an application to the Police Station - Pendra and also to the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, stating that the said report was made ignorantly by him on being influenced by some persons and that the said balance amount as promised has already been received by him from the Petitioner and that he has no dispute with the Petitioner and he does not want to prosecute the Petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Police Station-Pendra against the Petitioner regarding the said report be dropped. As the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 have settled their dispute outside the Court and the Complainant/Respondent No. 5 is not willing to proceed with the matter, the Petitioner has filed the instant Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 178/2014 registered in Police Station - Pendra, District - Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., and the consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5. 2. Learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioner as well as for Respondent; No. 5 jointly submit that it is a case where the Petitioner-and Respondent No. 5 have settled their disputes and differences and have decided to settle the matter once and for all and that both of them do not want to proceed with the matter any further. 3. So the question that arises for consideration is that whether the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. can be compounded or not. 3. So the question that arises for consideration is that whether the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. can be compounded or not. In this regard, some of the recent decisions is the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and the another decision in this regard is the judgment in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 . In the both these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in very categorical terms held that where in those cases settlement is already arrived at between the complainant and the accused person and that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, if the parties have buried their disputes, differences and grievances then it becomes important consideration for the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to compound the offence. Further, fact which has also to be appreciated is that in view of the compromise between the parties there is a minimal chance of the complainant coming forward in support of the prosecution case and the chances of conviction therefore appear to be remote and, therefore, it would be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. In the instant case also from the admitted position as is reflected from the documents filed with the Petition and also as it reflected from the statement made by the Complainant/Respondent No. 5, the possibility of conviction now becomes very bleak and the continuation of the criminal case would put the accused Petitioner to a great prejudice and inconvenience and there is also no possibility of the Complainant in the changed circumstances appearing before the Court below to support the case of the Prosecution. It would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings, particularly, when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. No useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which at the end of the day in all likelihood would result in acquittal of the Petitioner-Accused. 4. It would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings, particularly, when the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. No useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which at the end of the day in all likelihood would result in acquittal of the Petitioner-Accused. 4. In view of the statement made by the Petitioner and the Complainant/Respondent No. 5 and also keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2003 (4) SCC 675 as well as in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. Accordingly, the instant Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is allowed and the F.I.R. No. 178/2014 registered against the Petitioner in Police Station - Pendra, District - Bilaspur, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., as well as the consequential proceedings, stand quashed. No order as to costs.