Quashed

Sarvan Zindal Alias Sarvan Kumar Zindal v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2021Cr.M.P./1875/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings and the FIR pertaining to offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that a settlement was reached, no societal interest was involved, and the matter was heard via video conferencing.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.14 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad

Sarvan Zindal Alias Sarvan Kumar Zindal Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1875 of 2021

¶3

Sarvan Zindal @ Sarvan Kumar Zindal, aged about 40 years, son of Shyam Sundar Zindal, Resident of North Side, New Road, Phusro, Near Shyam Bhandar, P.O. Phusro Bazar, P.S. Bermo, District- Bokaro

¶4

… Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Chandan Kumar Agarwal, son of Motilal Agarwal, resident of B.M. Agarwal Colony, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P. For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, Advocate -----

¶11

03/06.10.2021. Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State and Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶12

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶13

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.14 of 2021 for the offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, settlement of the dispute arrived between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 has been annexed. He further submits that the allegation is civil in nature. There were

¶15

-2-

¶16

some transactions between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, which has been returned by the petitioner to opposite party no.2 and that is why the settlement dated 24.09.2021 has been arrived between the parties.

¶17

Learned counsel Mr. Mayank Mohit Sinha waives notice on behalf of opposite party no.2 and submits that he has already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2. He also accepts that the settlement of dispute has been arrived between the parties and opposite party no.2 has received the amount after the settlement.

¶18

Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned Spl.P.P. for the State submits that this is a case of money transaction between the parties. There is no societal interest involved and this Court may pass any appropriate order. 7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, memorandum of understanding along with bank statement have been annexed. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the settlement dated 24.09.2021 that party A and party B would endeavor to get their respective F.I.Rs. being Bermo P.S. Case No.121/2021 and Barwadda P.S. Case No.14/2021 be quashed before the competent court. It has been stated in paragraph 6 of the said settlement that Chandan Kumar Agarwal, who is the informant, has received Rs.27,33,650/- from the petitioner. In paragraph 7 of the said settlement, further description of payment and mode of payment are described. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that even in non-compoundable cases, the High Court can exercise its power to quash the petition. Similar view has been taken in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶19

-3-

¶20

In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no purpose will be served if the said proceeding is allowed to be continued particularly when there is no societal interest involved in the case in hand. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No.14 of 2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶21

1^st Class, Dhanbad is quashed.

¶22

This criminal miscellaneous petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.

¶23

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶24

Ajay/

Sarvan Zindal Alias Sarvan Kumar Zindal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvan Zindal Alias Sarvan Kumar Zindal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagat Narayan Upadhayay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitu Jindal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Mohnani Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Kumari Alias Jhingi Baskey Vs State of Jharkhand