Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 337 (CHH)

Manish Bansal v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-09-09

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER 1. By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of C.P.C. the petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings going on in Criminal Case No. 144/2013 pending before the J.M.F.C, Kharsia, District Raigarh so far as it relates to the present petitioner. 2. Facts leading to the present petition in brief is that the complainants who are the respondents 2 to 5 in the instant petition were the joint owners of the land in question along with their brother Hiralal. It is alleged that the said Hiralal presented a sale deed for registration before the Registrar along with a consent letter which is said to have been signed by the other co-owners i.e. respondents 2 to 5 and on the basis of the said consent letter of respondents 2-5, the Sale Deed was executed by Hiralal and the same was got registered. The complainants subsequently came to know about the fraud played by their brother Hiralal and therefore they immediately filed a complaint case u/s 200 of Cr. P.C. against the purchaser, the attesting witnesses to the Sale Deed and the attesting witnesses to the consent letter. The allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner is the person who had introduced the purchaser of the said property to the seller i.e. brother of the complainants Hiralal. 3. The said complaint was sent to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station by the Magistrate for conducting an enquiry and submission of the report. The report after due investigation was submitted on the basis of which cognizance of offences punishable u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC was taken. In the course of the investigation, it was concluded by the Investigating team that the consent letter of the co-owners i.e. respondents 2 to 5 have been forged by the co-accused persons which has also been confirmed by the handwriting expert. However, by the time the complaint was filed by the complainants, the co-owner of the property i.e. brother of complainants namely Hiralal who had sold the property forging the signature of the complainants had expired therefore the proceedings were drawn against the other accused persons i.e. the purchaser of the said property, the attesting witnesses of both the registered sale deed as well as the consent letter of the respondents 2 to 5. 4. 4. In due course of time, when the complainants did realize the fact that the present petitioner had in fact no major role to have played in forging the consent letter or in the execution of the Sale Deed except the fact that he had introduced the purchaser to the seller i.e. the brother of the complainants namely Hiralal who had since expired, the complainants and the present petitioner entered into a compromise and decided to compound the offence. Accordingly, they moved an application u/s 320 (2) of Cr. P.C for compounding the offences before the JMFC, Kharsiya, Raigarh with a prayer that the offence as levelled against the present petitioner having been compromised between the complainants and the present petitioner, the parties may be permitted to compound the offence and the petitioner may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 5. The said application u/s 320 (2) of Cr. P.C. was rejected by the JMFC, Kharsia vide order dated 11.02.2014 on the ground that except for Section 420 of IPC, all other offences are non-compoundable and that the petitioner is also not present in the Court at the time of hearing of the said application for compounding the offence. Against the rejection of the said application by the JMFC, Kharsia a revision petition was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge FTC, Raigarh which was registered as Criminal Revision No. H-24 of 2014. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 21.04.2014 remanded the matter back to the trial Court for deciding the said application filed u/s 320 (2) of Cr. P.C. Hence, the present petitioner has now filed the instant petition wherein he has sought for the relief of quashing of criminal proceedings against him. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case from the facts of the case itself it is clear that there is no major role attributed to the petitioner in commission of the alleged offence nor is there any allegation against the petitioner of having committed the act of forgery. He submits that it is also an admitted position that the only role played by the petitioner is of introducing the buyer to the purchaser and thereafter the entire deal has been executed between the buyer and the purchaser and that the petitioner has not put his signature in any of the documents executed between the parties. He submits that it is also an admitted position that the only role played by the petitioner is of introducing the buyer to the purchaser and thereafter the entire deal has been executed between the buyer and the purchaser and that the petitioner has not put his signature in any of the documents executed between the parties. He further submits that when these facts were made known to the complainants, they have decided to enter into a settlement/compromise with the petitioner and thereafter the complainants have decided to compound the matter in which the petitioner is being prosecuted. Accordingly, the complainants moved an application for permitting them and the petitioner to compound the offences and to drop the proceedings so far as it relates to the present petitioner. 7. During the court proceeding in the High Court, the respondents 3 to 5 appeared before the Court and submitted a medical report in respect of respondent No.2 stating that as she is medically unwell, she could not make herself present before the Court and they also brought a medical certificate showing the ailment of the respondent No.2. The respondents 3 to 5 who are present before the Court were represented through their lawyer Shri Mateen Siddiqui who in turn submitted that the complainants i.e. respondents 2 to 5 in the present case have decided not to prosecute the petitioner any further as they have settled the dispute between themselves and entered into a compromise and they want the matter to be compounded. Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submits that the complainants have also realized that the petitioner has not done any act of cheating or forgery against the complainants. 8. It is trite to mention at this juncture that when the Court calling upon the respondents 3 to 5 who are present before the Court to the dias and had put a query to each of the respondents 3 to 5, they have categorically made a statement before the Court that they have no grudge/grievance against the petitioner and that they have entered into a compromise with the petitioner and do not want to pursue the case any further so far as it relates to the present petitioner. 9. 9. However, the State counsel Shri Ashish Shukla opposing the petition makes a submission that in the instant case the compounding of the offences should not be permitted for the reason that it is a case where the present petitioner all these period was found absconding and avoiding the proceeding before the Court below and this conduct of the petitioner itself restricts the petitioner from getting permission of the High Court for compounding the offence. State counsel opposes the petition on the ground that so far as it relates to the other accused persons, as the complainants have not stated of having entered into a compromise with the other accused persons, this Court may not permit the petitioner case alone to be compounded. State counsel also contested the petition on the ground that since the act on the part of the petitioner as reflected from the case diary is that of committing forgery, cheating etc. the same would amount to an offence against the society and that it cannot be said to be a private dispute or a personal dispute and therefore also the compounding should not be permitted. 10. Having considered the submissions put forth by all the counsel if we go through the allegation levelled against the present petitioner and the other accused persons, it would evidently reflect and which has not been also disputed by the State counsel that the allegation so far as it relates to the present petitioner is only to the extent of being a broker and having introduced the buyer to the seller and beyond this there is no other role played by the petitioner in the entire commission of the offence. Further, if we peruse the nature of complaint, it would also reflect that the nature of dispute between the parties is predominantly of a civil nature which the complainants themselves on more than one occasion have expressed that they have settled their grievance and dispute, so far as it relates to the petitioner and that there is no further grievance or grudge against the petitioner, there is no likelihood of the complaints entering into witness box before the Court below and making a statement in respect of the prosecution and in all probability they would not support the case of the prosecution by which it could be said that the petitioner can be convicted. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served if the present petitioner is made to face the entire trial and to undergo the agony and trauma of the entire criminal proceedings before the trial Court. 11. The fact undisputedly is that in the given facts and circumstances when the complainants themselves have appeared before the High Court and have given a statement that they have no grudge and grievance against the petitioner and they do not want to pursue the case any further and they want the matter be compounded, the possibility of an order of conviction in the given facts and circumstances gets very remote and bleak. 12. As regards the issue whether the offence can be compounded so far as it relates to one of the accused persons, there are couple of recent judgments in this regard passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are Jayrajsingh Digvijaysingh Rana v. State of Gujarat and another, (2012) 12 SCC 401 , Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677 . In both these cases, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that so far as the compounding of an offence is concerned, it is permissible against one of the accused among many accused persons and the quashing of the proceedings always under such circumstances would be qua the person with whom the matter is being compounded and as far as the other accused persons are concerned, the criminal proceedings would continue to proceed against them. 13. As regards the compounding an offence where the nature of dispute is primarily between two individual parties, Hon'ble the Supreme Court also in a series of decisions in recent past, i.e. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and others, 2014 AIR SCW 1603 in very categorical terms has decided the fact that the High Court may quash a criminal proceeding if in its view on account of the compromise entered into between the offender and the victim, the possibility of the conviction is remote and bleak and under such circumstances continuation of a criminal proceeding would rather tantamount to abuse of process of law and it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end. Similarly, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes or where the dispute is between two individuals should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. The Hon'ble Court has further held that while exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be cause to him by not quashing the criminal cases. It is also held that those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation because in view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. 14. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case particularly in the light of the respondents 3 to 5 appearing before the High Court and making a submission that they do not intend to prosecute the present petitioner in the criminal proceeding any further, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, the instant Cr. M.P. is allowed and the criminal Proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in Criminal Case No. 144 of 2013 pending before the JMFC, Kharsia, Raigarh stands quashed. It is made clear that the quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal case is only in respect of the present petitioner and the criminal proceedings against the other accused persons would continue. No order as to costs.