Allowed

Akshat Kumar Jain v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2017Cr.M.P./1133/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand allowed a petition praying for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court quashed the FIR as the dispute was settled via an agreement, the amount was paid, and the business relationship was restored, deeming further proceedings futile.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding in Bariatu P.S. Case No.03 of 2017 registered for offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC is quashed and set aside.

Akshat Kumar Jain Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. M.P. No. 1133 of 2017

¶3

Akshat Kumar Jain ...Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Rahul Raghubanshi ....Opposite Parties

¶7

Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶8

----For the Petitioner : M/s P.C. Agarwal & Rahul Saboo, Advocates For the State : Mr. Suraj Mohan, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate

¶9

02/13.09.2017: Heard the parties.

¶10

In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.03 of 2017, G.R. No.88 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/ 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioners are the officials of the H. & R. John Sons (India) Company dealing in building materials and the informant is also one of the dealers of the Company. It has been alleged that on 31.10.2012, an invoice amounting to Rs.1,43,736/- and on 02.11.2012, an invoice amounting to Rs.16,217/- was raised by the petitioners in the name of the informant's company without having any instruction from the informant and the goods were sold to a customer at Deoghar. It has been alleged that when the informant sent notice to the Company about the said act, the company on 06.09.2016, tried to encash Rs.2,70,036/- from the bank account by using a cheque, which was given by the informant to the Company as a security. Further allegation has been levelled that the officials of the company has conspired against the informant, which resulted into loss of his goodwill and business and ultimately resulting in institution of the first information report on 06.01.2017.

¶12

It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the settlement agreement dated 19.01.2017 has also been entered into. Learned counsel further submits that the business relationship has been reestablished between the petitioners' Company and informant's Company and as such, entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Opp. Party No.2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that he does not have any objection, if the

¶14

criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

¶15

It appears from the perusal of the settlement agreement that the disputed amount of Rs.1,47,000/- has already been paid to the informant's company and the business relationship between the petitioner's Company and informant's Company has been reestablished and the dispute and difference, which was existing between them has finally come to an end.

¶16

In view of the fact that the dispute between the parties has come to an end by way of settlement agreement, and since the Opp. Party No.2 does not have any grievance against the petitioner, the continuance of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner would be an act in futility and will lead to abuse of the process of court.

¶17

Thus, in view of what has been stated above, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No.03 of 2017, G.R. No.88 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406/ 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code , is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶18

Accordingly, this application is allowed.

¶19

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶20

Ravi/

Akshat Kumar Jain v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshat Kumar Jain v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindeshwari Das Vs The Union Of India Through C B I

Ajay Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance

Pawan Kumar Khan And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sanjay Soni Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jamila Khatoon And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Firoj Khan Vs The State Of Jharkhand