Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1323 (JHR)

Aloke Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-01

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case No. 153 of 2010 including the order dated 5.5.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner is quashed. 5. A complaint case was instituted by the O.P. No.2, in which it was alleged that the complainant is the registered owner of LPT 1510 Tata Bus bearing registration No. JH-13A/1437 and as per the complainant, he had taken loan of Rs.91,000/- from the petitioner's firm on 28.02.2006, which was paid through cheque. It is stated that Rs. 30,000/- was again taken as a loan and with interest, a total amount of Rs. 1,50,400/- has been paid. It is alleged that after payment of the amount, the complainant has asked for issuance of NOC but the same was not issued and subsequently it was said that the vehicle, which was financed by the company of the petitioner, was repossessed leading to institution of C.P. Case No. 153 of 2010. 6. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC, cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 5.5.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chatra. 7. Petitioner as it seems is one of the Directors of the Finance Company. 6. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC, cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 5.5.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chatra. 7. Petitioner as it seems is one of the Directors of the Finance Company. The dispute seems to be with respect to financing of the vehicle, which was subsequently re-possessed by the petitioner. Commercial dispute, which was existing between the petitioner 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner and O.P. No.2 has been resolved. 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. 9. In view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with complaint case No. 153 of 2010 including the order dated 5.5.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chatra, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. Application allowed.