Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1253 (JHR)

Anand Prakash Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-25

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : I.A. No. 5492 of 2016 Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 who has preferred this application and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the opposite party No., 2 who is said to have died and therefore he be substituted by his wife, namely, Sushma Oraon. 3. Considering the averment made in this I.A. as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, this I.A. is allowed. 4. Let Sushma Oraon be substituted in place of deceased opposite parties No. 2, namely, Bansi Oraon. 5. Office is directed to make necessary correction. Cr. M.P. No. 276 of 2015 6. Heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 7. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 271 of 2014 (G.R. No. 4054 of 2014), registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C., pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 8. A complaint case was instituted by the complainant in which it has been alleged that the petitioners and other accused persons are the joint owners of a land situated in Village Booty, Khata no. 176, Survey Plot No. 2022 Area 0.24 Acres and the petitioner was appointed as power of attorney holder through a registered deed of Power of Attorney. It has been further alleged that the complaint was in need of the land and therefore he contacted with the petitioner and the petitioner as well as the complainant agreed to enter into an agreement of sale with respect to the said land, which was executed on 18.08.2009. At the time of execution of agreement i.e. on 18.08.2009 Rs. 04 Lakhs was given as advance. Later on Rs. 02 Lakhs and Rs. 04 Lakhs were also given to the petitioner on 13.11.2009 and 12.12.2009 respectively. The allegation has been levelled that the complainant was ready to pay the balance amount, in spite of that even after expiry of more than two years, the accused persons had not executed the sale deed nor had they returned the advance amount i.e. Rs. 04 Lakhs were also given to the petitioner on 13.11.2009 and 12.12.2009 respectively. The allegation has been levelled that the complainant was ready to pay the balance amount, in spite of that even after expiry of more than two years, the accused persons had not executed the sale deed nor had they returned the advance amount i.e. Rs. 10 Lakhs, given to the petitioner, as aforesaid, which led to institution of Complaint Case No. 2396 of 2012. The said complaint on being referred to the police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., an F.I.R. was registered being Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 271 of 2014 (G.R. No. 4054 of 2014) for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. 9. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and an amount of Rs. 18 Lakhs has been returned back to the substituted opposite party No. 2 and to this effect I.A. No. 5494 of 2017 has been filed by way of joint compromise. Learned senior counsel submits that since the opposite party No. 2 has now no grievance against the petitioner, the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that opposite party No. 2 does not have any grievance, if the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner is quashed, as she has received Rs. 18 Lakhs, as per the terms and conditions of joint compromise so arrived at between the parties. 11. It appears from I.A. No. 5494 of 2017 that the matter has finally been settled between the parties. Recital of the said application reflects that claim of the opposite party No. 2 has already been settled, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 that other grievances have also been redressed by the petitioner, as she has received Rs. 18 Lakhs, as per the terms and conditions of joint compromise so arrived at between the parties. 12. In view of the compromise so arrived at and the dispute between the parties having been laid to rest therefore it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the criminal proceeding. 13. 18 Lakhs, as per the terms and conditions of joint compromise so arrived at between the parties. 12. In view of the compromise so arrived at and the dispute between the parties having been laid to rest therefore it would be an exercise in futility to continue with the criminal proceeding. 13. In view of the aforesaid fact, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ranchi (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 271 of 2014 (G.R. No. 4054 of 2014), pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set aside. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.