Allowed

Mukesh Bhajanka v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC25 Nov 2022W.P.(Cr.)/531/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings and challenged charge framing in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 327 of 2009 after the parties settled the private commercial dispute through mediation submitted by the petitioner and respondent no. 2 with state concurrence.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings including the order framing charge dated 17.01.2015 are quashed and set-aside.

Mukesh Bhajanka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

15 /25.11.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cri.) No. 531 of 2015 With

¶3

I.A. No. 9801 of 2022

¶4

Mukesh Bhajanka S/o Lajpat Bhajanka, resident of 410 Jeevan Deep, Ring Road, Surat, PO & PS- Surat, District- Surat, Gujrat.

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Jitendra Kumar, S/o Madan Prasad, resident of Agriculture Marketing Ward, Shop No. 24, Pandra, Po- Pandra, PSSukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi. … … Respondents

¶9

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the respondent no.. 2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondent- State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, Advocate

¶12

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶13

“For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing of the order dated 2.1.2015 passed by learned C.J.M., Ranchi in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 327/2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1822/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned court below rejected the supplementary report filed by the police and proceeded in the criminal prosecution on the basis of chargesheet no. 850/2009 dated 23.11.2009.

¶14

AND

¶15

Further prays for quashing of order dated 17.1.2015 whereby and whereunder the learned court below framed the charge under section 406, 420, I.P.C. against the present petitioner.

¶16

AND

¶17

Further prays for stay of further proceeding in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 327/2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1822/2009 during pendency of the present writ application, now the case is pending the court of learned C.J.M. at Ranchi, OR any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order(s) be passed and direction(s) be made as Your Lordships may appear fit and proper.”

¶18

3. Vide order dated 18.07.2022, the matter was referred to Jharkhand

¶19

State Legal Services Authority for mediation as on the said date, it was jointly submitted by the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 that the parties have agreed to settled their dispute outside the Court. On 08.09.2022, it was submitted that they have settled their dispute at the stage of mediation and the disputes are private commercial dispute between the parties i.e. petitioner and the respondent no.

¶20

¶21

¶22

4. I.A. No. 9801 of 2022 has been filed bringing on record the terms of settlement between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have submitted that they have settled their disputes outside the court and the criminal case be quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 2.

¶23

5. The learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that he has no objection and primarily the case is in the realm of private dispute between the parties. He also submits that the appropriate order can be passed in this case considering the settlement between the parties and no useful purpose will be served by proceeding further in the criminal case.

¶24

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State has also expressed that he has no serious objection as primarily the dispute arises out of commercial dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 2.

¶25

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 have settled their dispute outside the Court through mediation before Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and they have also filed joint compromise petition and the respondent no. 2 has no objection if the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner is set-aside by this Court in this proceeding. The dispute between the parties arises out of private commercial dispute which has now been settled through mediation and accordingly no useful purpose will be served by continuation of the criminal case pending before the learned court below.

¶26

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings including order framing charge dated 17.01.2015 as against the petitioner in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 327 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1822 of 2009, said to be pending in the court of learned C.J.M. at Ranchi, is hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶27

9. All pending I. As are closed.

¶28

10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX/Email’.

¶30

Pankaj

Mukesh Bhajanka v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Bhajanka 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

Deepak Kumar Mahto Vs Eastern Coalfields Limited through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Amlendu Sharan Vs Jharkhand State Electricity Board through Its Chairman and Ors.

Nand Gopal Sah Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Satyanarayan Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Amrendra Kumar Vs Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma the Secretary Dept of School Education and Literacy

Prabhat Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.