The High Court
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2021 ------ 1. Saubhik Majumdar, son of Late Biresh Majumdar aged about 45 years working as Zonal Head, West 1, IndusInd Bank Ltd having 2- 57, Road No.17, MIDC Industrial Estate, PO.- Marol, PS- Andheri East, Dist- Mumbai Maharashtra, Pincode-400069 permanent resident at Mangalam Park, Flat no AV 305 14 HO Chi Minh Sarani, PO & PS Behala, Circus Avenue, Dist Kolkata, West Bengal-700034 at present residing at Flat no 204, 2nd Floor, Building no 16, Mhada, New Link road, Oshiara, PO & PS Andheri West, Dist Mumbai, Maharastra- 400053, working as Zonal Head, West 1, IndusInd Bank Ltd. 2. Partha Pratim Dhar @ Partha Dhar S/o Late Sasanka Bhushan Dhar, aged about 46 years, R/o Malati, Fabtabad, Katherbari, P.O. Rajpur Sonarpur P.S. Garia, Dist. South 24 Pargana, State West Bengal, by Faith Hindu, working as Zonal Head – Business Banking Group, IndusInd Bank Limited at Saket Towers, 6th Floor, 44, PO Park Street, PS- Shakespeare Sarani, Dist.- Kolkata- 700016, West Bengal … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited through its legal counsel, Mirza Qaiser Iqbail Beg having its Corporate office at Plot No.14A, 2nd Floor, Sec 18, PO & PS Udyog Vihar, Dist- Gurugram-122015, State- Haryana … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No.406 of 2021 ------ Sumant Kathpalia S/o Yashpal Kathpalia aged about 59 years, R/o House no B 9, Anshal Villa Satbari PO & PS Chaatarpur, Dist South 1 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With Delhi, New Delhi-110074 Managing Director & CEO, IndusInd Bank Limited, Corporate Office 8th Floor, Tower-I, One Indiabull Centre, 841, S.B. Marg, PO & PS Elphinstone Road, Dist Mumbai – 400013, Maharashtra. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited through its legal counsel, Mirza Qaiser Iqbail Beg S/o Not Known to the petitioner having its Corporate office at Plot No.14A, 2nd Floor, Sect 18, PO & PS Udyog Vihar, Gurugram-122015, Haryana … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No.944 of 2021 ------ Ujjwal Prakash S/O Om Prakash Agarwal aged about 31 years R/O Near IDBI Bank, Kirani Ghat, Riverside Road, PO, PS & District Gaya, Bihar-823001 … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited through its legal counsel, Mirza Qaiser Iqbail Beg having its Corporate office at Plot No.14A, 2nd Floor, Sect 18, PO & PS Udyog Opposite Parties Vihar, Gurugram-122015, Haryana … ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC III Ms. Neha Pandey, AC to Sr. SC III : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With 2. All these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.1576 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2021 and Interlocutory Application No.1575 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No.406 of 2021 which are supported by separate affidavits of the authorized representative of the IndusInd Bank as well as the authorized representatives of the informant company namely Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited and submit that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of the criminal proceeding, the misunderstanding between the parties have been amicably resolved out of the court with the intervention of well-wishers and in view of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, the informant/ opposite No.2 is not willing to proceed with the case any further against the Bank and its employees and voluntarily desires to not proceed with the same without being influenced by anybody. It is next jointly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/informant that therein it has also been mentioned that the present dispute arose due to cancellation of Bank guarantee. The said bank guarantee was cancelled at the request of the 3 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With customer of the Bank, M/s HT Equipment Private Limited, however, the said Bank guarantee has been restored on 20.01.2021 on the date of the F.I.R. on the request of the customer and the same has been handed over to the informant- company. It is also submitted that no loss has been caused to the Bank as 100% collateral security in the form of fixed deposit and immovable property has been taken by the Bank from its customer, HT Equipment. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on 4 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph No.11 as under:- “11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) “61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; for quashing criminal cannot provide proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the for any basis 5 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)” 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the offences involved in this case relates to private dispute between the parties. 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victims, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.09 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 6 Cr. M.P. No.942 of 2021 With Cr. M.P. No.406 of 2021 Cr. M.P. No.944 of 2021 With 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, these Cr.M.Ps. stand allowed. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P.s, Interlocutory Application No.1576 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No.942 of 2021 and Interlocutory Application No.1575 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No.406 of 2021 stand disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 7