Allowed

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2023CRLMP/1101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed FIR No. 51/2023 under Sections 420, 506, and 120-B of IPC. The court allowed criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by WAPCOS officials. The quashing was based on a settlement reached between parties and the withdrawal of the initial complaint filed with the Central Vigilance Commission, relying on established Supreme Court principles.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 51/2023 registered at Police Station Gudha, Jhunjhunu is quashed and set aside. The stay application is disposed of.

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1101/2023

¶3

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son Of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years, Presently Working As- Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Of M/s Wapcos Limited (A Central Public Sector Enterprise), Having Its Registered Head Office Situated At - 5Th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi110001.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Ld. Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Satpal Singh Son Of Nand Singh, Resident Of Jakhal, PsGudhagodgi, District- Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1362/2023

¶11

Sanjay Bohidar Son of Late Shri Trailokya Nath Bohidar, Aged About 55 Years, Presently Working As- Chief Engineer (Vigilance) In M/s Wapcos Limited (A Central Public Sector Enterprise), Having Its Registered Head Office Situated At -5Th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Ld. Public Prosecutor.

¶15

Satpal Singh Son of Nand Singh, Resident Of PsGudhagodji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1364/2023

¶18

Sumir Chawla Son Of Shri Satinder Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Presently Working As- Addl. Chief Manager (Hrd). Presently Working In M/s Wapcos Limited (A Central Public Sector Enterprise), Having Its Registered Head Office Situated At-5Th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

¶19

Avtar Singh Son Of Shri Baldev Singh, Aged About 34 Years, Presently Working As - Deputy Manager, Presently Working In M/s Wapcos Limited (A Central Public Sector

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMP-1101/2023]

¶22

Enterprise), Having Its Registered Head Office Situated At -5Th Floor, Kailash Building, 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001.

¶23

----Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Ld. Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Satpal Singh Son Of Nand Singh, Resident Of Jakhal, PsGudhagodji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Alakh Alok Srivastava Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh Mr. Varun Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Mahala, PP Mr. Pramod Kumar Saini for
	complainant

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶30

Order

¶31

26/07/2023

¶32

The complainant Satpal Singh is present in person and he has been duly identified by his counsel.

¶33

By way of these criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.51/2023 registered at Police Station Gudha, Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 & 120-B of IPC.

¶34

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No.2 Satpal Singh submitted a written complaint on 13.04.2022 against the officials of WAPCOS before the Central Vigilance Commission while levelling allegations of corruption, money laundering etc. After filing of the aforesaid complaint, the

¶35

[CRLMP-1101/2023]

¶36

(3 of 4)

¶37

complainant lodged the impugned FIR No.51/2023 for offences under Sections 420, 506 and 120B IPC against six accused persons namely Sanjay Bhohidar, Rajnikant Agarwal, Sameer Chawla, Manisha Dhankar, Awtar Singh and Sanju and alleged that he received a letter dated 26.09.2022 from WAPCOS wherein it was mentioned that the company has received information that he has withdrawn his complaint whereas the fact remains that he has not sent any letter to Central Vigilance Commission for withdrawal of his complaint. The complainant, thereafter, sought information regarding this letter under RTI Act. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have made his false signatures on a letter and on that basis, complaint denial letter has been issued. After registration of FIR, investigation has been commenced in this matter and which is pending till date.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant does not want to pursue the impugned FIR. It is further submitted that the complainant has no objection if this FIR is quashed. In support of his contentions, an affidavit sworn by the complainant has been annexed with this petition. It is also pertinent to mention here that the very first complaint which was filed by the complainant before the Central Vigilance Commission has also been withdrawn by the complainant.

¶39

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the aforesaid factual position.

¶40

[CRLMP-1101/2023]

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal and the fact that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably so also the fact that the very first complaint filed by the complainant Satpal before the Central Vigilance Commission has also been withdrawn and finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ] , the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶43

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.51/2023 registered at Police Station Gudha, Jhunjhunu is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

¶44

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶45

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶46

CHARU SONI /722-724

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Smt. Dwarka Devi W/O Late Shri Mahavir Prasad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Sharma S/O Hardesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu @ Sattu S/O Shri Goru Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Dhanka S/O Shri Uday Chand Dhanka B/C Dhanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumir Chawla Son of Shri Satinder Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Bohidar Son of Late Shri Trailokya Nath Bohidar, Vs State of Rajasthan