Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1244 (JHR)

Subhankar Biswas v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-07-24

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in all the cases. 3. In these applications, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 406/420/34 of I.P.C. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that the premises of the informant''s sister namely, Neeta Verma at H-117, Harmu Housing Colony was taken on rent by HDFC Bank on 04.04.2014, but for the last 2 years in violation of the terms of lease agreement, the bank had not paid any money. It has been stated in the FIR that the sister of the informant was a widow of ex-army man and his only son is physically handicapped. Further allegation has been levelled that the premises have been constructed by taking loan and in view of default in rent payment by the bank, the informant''s sister is facing difficulty in repaying the loan. It has also been alleged that the informant had a conversation with all the accused namely, Rajiv Sen Gupta, Sankar Saha and Subhankar Biswas, but all of them had given false assurance and continued to occupy the said premises violating the terms and conditions of lease agreement. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation, Argora P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 406/420/34 of I.P.C. 6. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners in the respective cases are all bank officials who have been named as accused in the FIR. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi and pursuant to the said compromise the bank has vacated the premises as could be detected by the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. It has been stated that in view of the the compromise so arrived at and since premises had already been handed over to the sister of the informant, the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. It has been stated that in view of the the compromise so arrived at and since premises had already been handed over to the sister of the informant, the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has also accepted the fact that the premises has been vacated by the HDFC bank and neither the informant nor his sister has any grievance against the petitioners. 8. It appears that all the petitioners are bank officials employed in HDFC bank. Before the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi efforts were made for compromise and pursuant to the said efforts, the matter was compromised between the parties on various terms and conditions which have been enumerated in the said agreement. The only thing which prolonged the longevity of this case is non-vacating of the premises by the HDFC bank. However, the supplementary affidavit which has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner suggest that the physical possession of the premises situated at H-117, Harmu Housing Colony has been given and the keys of the said premises has been handed over to the landlord by the HDFC bank and a written intimation dated 11.07.2017 regarding the same has also been handed over to its landlord/landlady which has duly been received by the informant being the representative of the landlady. Thus, the physical possession of the premises has been accepted by the informant being the representative of the original owner and therefore, the terms and conditions as has been agreed upon between the parties at Mediation Centre has fully been complied with. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has once again reiterated that he has no grievance against the petitioner and further does not intend to pursue the criminal case any further. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts when the compromise itself has been effected between the parties and the terms and conditions of the compromise has fully been adhered to, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an act in futility. 10. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 2097 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. 10. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 109 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 2097 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. Pending I.As in all the cases shall also stand disposed of.