Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1322 (JHR)

Aloke Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case No. 258 of 2010 including the order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that matter has been compromised between the parties and the due amount of Rs. 1,64,000/- has been returned back to the company. Learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners, in which the joint compromise petition has also been brought on record. Learned counsel therefore submits that in view of the compromise so arrived at between the parties and the dispute being purely commercial in nature, entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that the grievance has been redressed and the amount has been returned back to him and, therefore, he does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners is quashed. 5. A complaint case was instituted by the O.P. No. 2, in which it was alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 had repossessed the vehicle on gun point on the instruction of the petitioners. It is also alleged that subsequently the vehicle was found near Janta Garrage, Anwar Chock, Paharitola, Villager-Bajra and although the matter was informed to the police but since no action was taken, the complaint case was instituted. 6. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202, CrPC, cognizance was taken for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra. 7. Petitioner No.1 as it seems is one of the Directors of the Finance Company and other petitioners are employees of the Company. The dispute seems to be with respect to financing of the vehicle, which was subsequently re-possessed by the petitioners. 7. Petitioner No.1 as it seems is one of the Directors of the Finance Company and other petitioners are employees of the Company. The dispute seems to be with respect to financing of the vehicle, which was subsequently re-possessed by the petitioners. Commercial dispute, which was existing between the petitioners and the complainant has been settled, as would be evident from the compromise petition, which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners. 8. Joint compromise petition reveals that amount of Rs. 1,64,000/- has been returned back to the complainant and the entire dispute between the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 has been resolved. 9. In view of the compromise so arrived at and the dispute being commercial in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an act in futility. In view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case No. 258 of 2010 including the order dated 1.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. Application allowed.