Jitendra Pratap Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:49071

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 2879 of 2024

¶6

Jitendra Pratap Baghel S/o Jaitram Baghel, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Bedarkona, P.S. - Rampur, District - Korba Chhattisgarh, (Accused Before The Trail Court).

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Akaltara, District Janjgir - Champa, Chhattigarh.

¶10

Shantilal Sonwani S/o Shri Sahettar Sonwani, Aged About 50 Years R/o Piparsatti, P.S. And Tahsil - Akaltara, District Janjgir -Chmpa, Chhattisgrh. (Complaint Before The Traial Court.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mrs. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.2 Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate.

¶13

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

12/12/2024

¶16

The petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No 341 sof 2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir

¶17

2

¶18

Champa on the ground of settlement and compromise between the accused and the complainant.

¶19

The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before the Police Station Akaltara stating therein that on 24-1-2024 at 3.00 pm two unknown persons came to him and told that they have ofÏce in front of Little Finance Champa Branch, Champa SBI. They told him that they will give him Rs.5 – 6 lakhs @ 8% percent against his land for which he was required to submit his land papers. In order to take the said loan, he has given a photocopy of his land and also gave him his cheque book of District Cooperative Limited Bank signed by him. On 29-12024 when he sold his paddy from the paddy market, Rs.1,94,723/was deposited in the account No. 106002623114 and on t he same day an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been withdrawn from his account which was deposited in the account No.6260911933 . After seeing this complainant went to the Bank where it was informed that the cheque has been withdrawn by one Jitgendra Baghel and his account No. 32491630445 of State Bank of India which has been mentioned in the complaint and his Mobile 9244183846 and in this way the petitioner fraudulently had withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from his signed cheque and thereby committed the said offence. On the basis of report given by the complainant, FIR was registered against the appellant and after usual investigation offence under Sections 409, 120-B and 420 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, charge sheet has been submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa who has taken cognizance of the offence.

¶20

During pendency of the complain, an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have settled their

¶21

3

¶22

dispute. Initially complainant moved an application on 7-6-2024 and thereafter petitioner has also submitted a joint application wherein both parties have signed on 23-7-2024 which was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 7-6-2024. being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed this CRMP for quashing of the criminal proceeding.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 24-10-2024 this Court has directed the petitioner and respondent No.2 to record their statements before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court on 7-11-2024 with respect to compromise arrived at between them. Accordingly, petitioner and respondent have been examined before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court wherein complainant stated that in amicable terms they have already settled the dispute between them he does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings and accordingly Ex.P/4 was executed between them.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 420 of IPC. is compoundable with the leave of of the person who has cheated and Sections 409 and 120-B are non-compoundable,, but this Court in exercise of its power can very well quash the charges of Section 409 and 120-B of IPC. He would further submit that Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bharthi Devi and others vs. State of Telangana and others, reported in MANU/SC/1083/2024 has examined the entire law on the subject with regard to quashment of entire proceedings on account of compromise between the parties. Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Bharthi Devi and others (supra) has held in para sub para 59 of 23, 31, 32 and 37 as under.

¶25

4

¶26

“23. The reference was answered by the learned 3 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) MANU/SC/0781/2012: 2012:INSC: 419: (2012) 10 SCC 303. Speaking for the Bench, R.M. Lodh, J (as His Lordship then was) observed thus:

¶27

Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court Under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

¶28

Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement

¶29

5

¶30

between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is Illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.

¶31

B.S. Joshi [ MANU/SC/0230/2003: 2003:INSC: 179: (2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Crl) 848], Nikhil Merchant [ MANU/SC/7957/2008: 2008:INSC:948 : (2008) 9 SCC 677: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858), Manoj Sharma [MANU/SC/8122/2008: (2008) 16 SCC 1: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [MANU/SC/1341/2011: (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power Under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court Under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi [ MANU/SC/0230/2003 2003:INSC: 179: (2003) 4 SCC 675: 2003 SCC (Cri) 848), Nikhil Merchant [ MANU/SC/7957/2008: 2008:INSC:948: (2008) 9 SCC 677: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858), Manoj Sharma [ MANU/SC/8122/2008: 2008:INSC: 1166 (2008) 16 SCC 1: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] and Shiji [MANU/SC/1341/2011: (2011) 10 SCC 705: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences Indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence Under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power Under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be

¶32

6

¶33

the same viz. acquittal of the Accused or dismissal of indictment.

¶34

It could thus be seen that this Court reiterates the position that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶35

Though in the said case, the High Court had refused to exercise its jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings wherein a serious offence Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was involved, this Court after taking into consideration various factors including that the elders of the village, Including the Sarpanch, had intervened in the matter and the parties had not only buried their hatchet but had decided to live peacefully in the future, quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.

¶36

In the result, we find that this was a fit case wherein the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the criminal proceedings”.

¶37

Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and also the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant have been examined before this Court wherein in amicable terms they have settled their dispute, I am of the view that the criminal proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa deserves to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed in respect of the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 409, 120-B and 420 of IPC.

¶38

7

¶39