Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 923 (JHR)

Rohan Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-05

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 888 of 2012, which has been instituted for the offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story as would appear is that the informant being desirous of purchasing a piece of land for building a house had gone to the office of M/s Samridhi Creative Private Limited, wherein a map of a land was shown and the price quoted was @ Rs.257 per sq. ft. The informant having agreed to purchase 4800 sq ft. of land @Rs.257 per sq ft. had deposited Rs.6 lac through five different cheques and separately Rs.3 lacs vide two different cheques. It has been alleged that a total sum of Rs.9 lacs was deposited with the company towards purchase of the land. Further allegation in the FIR is to the effect that in spite of receiving an amount of Rs.9 lacs, sale deed was not executed in favour of the informant in spite of repeated requests being made by her. In order to assure the informant, four cheques had been given by the Company when it failed to execute a sale deed, but on presentation of the said cheques before the Bank, save and except one cheque amounting to Rs.1 lac, other cheques were dishonored. Based on the allegations levelled as above, Bariatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 888 of 2012 was instituted. 3. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 are the employees of M/s Samridhi Creative Private Limited, whereas the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of the said company. It has been submitted that infact the C.E.O. of the Company namely Narendra Kumar Thakur had misled certain customers in his personal capacity and when the petitioner no.2 had asked him to settle the dispute, it was refused, which led the petitioner no. 2 to institute an FIR against Narendra Kumar Thakur being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 3 of 2012. It has been submitted that infact the C.E.O. of the Company namely Narendra Kumar Thakur had misled certain customers in his personal capacity and when the petitioner no.2 had asked him to settle the dispute, it was refused, which led the petitioner no. 2 to institute an FIR against Narendra Kumar Thakur being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 3 of 2012. It has further been submitted that since Narendra Kumar Thakur was the person who was responsible for such misdeeds, the petitioners being the office bearers in various capacities in M/s Samridhi Creative Private Limited could not be proceeded against in a criminal case. It has further been submitted that a joint compromise petition was entered into between the petitioners and the informant in Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012, in which one of the conditions was that the informant after receiving the entire amount after final calculation shall withdraw all the cases including Bariatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012 against the Company as well as the other accused persons. It has also been submitted that in spite of the entire amount having been returned back, the informant-opposite party no. 2 has resiled from her earlier commitment in order to pressurize the petitioners to realise further amount. 5. Mr. Vijayant Verma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has referred to the counter affidavit and to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2. It has been submitted that an amount of Rs.60,000/-was due from the petitioners, to which the petitioners had given a letter of undertaking along with a cheque bearing cheque no. 007193 drawn on HDFC Bank dated 7.09.2012, which was handed over to the informant. It has been stated that after the cheque was presented to the Bank, the same also got dishonored. In such circumstances, it has been submitted that since the petitioners have not strictly adhered to the joint compromise petition, the informant-opposite party no. 2 does not accept the compromise on account of such non fulfillment on the part of the petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, I find that the issue in the present case revolves around initially for non-execution of a sale deed even though the petitioners had taken Rs.9 lacs from the informant on various dates. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records, I find that the issue in the present case revolves around initially for non-execution of a sale deed even though the petitioners had taken Rs.9 lacs from the informant on various dates. Subsequently however a joint compromise petition was entered into, in which it was categorically stated that after receiving the entire amount after final calculation, Doranda P.S. Case No. 166 of 2012 and Bariatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012 shall be withdrawn. As it appears from the counter affidavit as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, that the dispute still persists inasmuch as the informant claims certain amount, which the petitioners disputes. In such circumstances, when the compromise petition itself seems to be frail, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 40 of 2012 cannot be quashed on that ground. Even on merits, there are specific allegations against the petitioners and since the investigation has not culminated in submission of chargesheet, it would not be in the interest of justice to interfere in the criminal proceedings at the very threshold of the investigation. 7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application, which is, hereby, dismissed.