Allowed

Ms Pidilite Industries Limited through Its Section Head Regional Accounts Shyamal Dutta and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2023Cr.M.P./2472/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition, filed to quash criminal proceedings arising from a recovery dispute, was allowed after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The criminal charge was quashed upon payment and acceptance of a settlement sum of Rs. 50,000.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case C/1 Case No. 406 of 2012, including the cognizance order dated 22.05.2012, were quashed.

Ms Pidilite Industries Limited through Its Section Head… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 2472 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶4

Cr.M.P. No. 2472 of 2012

¶5

M/s Pidilite Industries Limited through its Section Head, Regional Accounts Shyamal Dutta, Mumbai

¶6

Prabhakar Jain, Chief Executive Officer in M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Mumbai

¶7

Nilesh Mazumdar @ Nilesh Nazumdar, President, C.P. Division, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Mumbai

¶8

Sandeep Pandya, CP-ASF Division, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Mumbai

¶9

Prithwis Halder @ Pritwis Halder, Regional Sales Manager, MNT Division, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Kolkata

¶10

Atulya Das, Regional Sales Manager, CP-ASF Division, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Kolkata

¶11

S.P. Bhola, Area Sales Manager, CP MNT Division, M/s Pidilite Industries Limited, Kolkata … Petitioners -Versus-

¶12

The State of Jharkhand

¶13

M/s Shree Lalita Sales, represented by its proprietor Sri Gaurav Kumar Singhal, Jamshedpur … Opposite Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.S. Sahay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate

¶16

08/17.07.2023 This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case being C/1 Case No.406 of 2012 including the cognizance order dated 22.05.2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶17

Seeing the nature of dispute in the present case as it has been filed for recovery of certain amount, the matter was sent before the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) for mediation vide order dated 08.05.2023. Pursuant to that mediation has taken place and the report of the Member Secretary, JHALSA is on the record, which suggests that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute.

¶18

¶19

Cr.M.P. No. 2472 of 2012

¶20

The terms and conditions of the settlement signed by both the sides are also on the record. Both the parties submit that they will abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement. It has been agreed between the parties that both the parties will withdraw the cases, filed against each other. It has also been agreed that the petitioner- M/s Pidilite Industries Limited will pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement to opposite party no.2.

¶21

Opposite party no.2 is present in the Court and demand draft of Rs.50,000/- has been handed over to opposite party no.2 by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Court. The identity of opposite party no.2 has been identified by the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. Photo copy of the said demand draft is taken on the record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter has been settled amicably between the parties, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.

¶23

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case and demand draft has already been handed over to opposite party no.2.

¶24

On the query, opposite party no.2 also submits that he does not want to proceed further in the matter.

¶25

In view of the above facts, it transpires that for recovery of the amount the complaint case has been filed and both the parties have settled the dispute and sum of Rs.50,000/- as full and final settlement has been handed over to opposite party no.2 and the same has been accepted by opposite party no.2, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case being C/1 Case No.406 of 2012 including the cognizance

¶26

¶27

Cr.M.P. No. 2472 of 2012

¶28

order dated 22.05.2012, pending in the court of the learned Judicial

¶29

Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶31

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶32

Ajay/

Ms Pidilite Industries Limited through Its Section Head Regional Accounts Shyamal Dutta and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Pidilite Industries Limited through Its Section Head Regional Accounts Shyamal Dutta and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratna Prabha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prem Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Home Department

Bhim Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Home Government of Jharkhand

Sanehalata Devi Shyamalata D Vs Md.Samsuddin And Ors.

Ramadhar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Ekramul Vs Fatima Khatoon and Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Ratna Prabha Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prem Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Home Department

Bhim Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Home Government of Jharkhand

Sanehalata Devi  Shyamalata D Vs Md.Samsuddin And Ors.

Ramadhar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand and Anr.

MD Ekramul Vs Fatima Khatoon and Ors.

Sanehalata Devi Shyamalata D Vs Md.Samsuddin And Ors.