Allowed

Sarita Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC10 Jan 2024Cr.M.P./1498/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings regarding a personal transaction dispute. Upon confirmation that the alleged amounts were returned via compromise and a co-accused was acquitted, the court held there was no societal interest involved, citing Narinder Singh and Gian Singh.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 105 of 2015 and G.R. No. 1470 of 2015 are quashed.

Sarita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 1498 of 2016

¶3

Sarita Devi @ Sarita Cr.M.P.	..... … Petitioner with No. 2002 of 2015
Pratap Kumar Biswal V	..... … Petitioner ersus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Ashok Kumar Singh -----	..... … Opposite Parties [in both cases] ---
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. -----	JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI -
For the Petitioners : :	Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate. Mr. Saumitra Baroi, Advocate.
For the State : :	Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : : -----	Mr. Manish Yadav, Advocate. Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate. -

¶4

08/ 10.01.2024 In both these cases common FIR is under challenge, as such, both these petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

¶5

Heard Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 1498 of 2016, Mr. Saumitra Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2002 of 2015, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State in Cr.M.P. No. 1498 of 2016, Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the state in Cr.M.P. No. 2002 of 2015, Mr. Manish Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 1498 of 2016 and Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in Cr.M.P. No. 2002 of 2015.

¶6

Both these petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 105 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1470 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur.

¶7

Mr. A.K. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are made of certain transaction of amount between the parties and the amount invested by the O.P. No. 2 in both the cases have already been returned back to the O.P. No. 2 and the compromise has entered into between the parties and considering this aspect, one of the co-accused, who has faced the trial, has been acquitted by the learned trial court by the judgment dated 19.06.2023.

¶8

-2-

¶9

He submits that for that the I.A. No. 2224 of 2020 [In Cr.M.P. No. 1498 of 2016] has been filed to compromise the case between the parties. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

¶10

The said argument of Mr. Choudhary is being accepted by Mr. Baroi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr.M.P. No. 2002 of 2015 as well as Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in other Cr.M.P.

¶11

Learned counsels appearing for the O.P. No. 2 in respective cases jointly submit that O.P. No. 2 has already received the amount and also the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the matter any further. Further they jointly submit that in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, one of the co-accused, who has faced the trial, has already been acquitted by the learned court.

¶12

Learned A.P.Ps. appearing for the State in respective cases accept this position that the amount has already been refunded in view of the averments made in the I.A.

¶13

In view of the above, it appears that the case is personal in nature for refund of certain amount and the said amount has already been returned back to the O.P. No 2, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Further on the basis of said compromise, one of the co-accused, who has faced the trail has already been acquitted, as has been noted hereinabove and also there is no societal interest in involved in the matter. Reference may be made to the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr ., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and further to the case of “ Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶14

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. Case No. 105 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 1470 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed.

¶15

Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶16

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶17

Amitesh/-

Sarita Devi v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Singh Alias Mandeshwar Singh Alias Mandeshwar Prasad Singh And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Mahendra Thakur And Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Janki Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mohd Usman Ansari And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Gopal Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

B K Thakur Alias Binay Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand