(Lok-Adalat) Vikas Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and OCG202227012216360618COM998919

MANU/CG/0030/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRMP No. 56 of 2022
Decided On: 18.01.2022
Appellants: Vikas Kumar Agrawal
Vs.
Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rajani Dubey, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Achyut Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Ishwar Jaiswal, P.L. and Subha Shrivastava, Advocate
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS FOR/AGAINST QUASHING OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER
Rajani Dubey, J.
Proceeding through video conferencing.
Heard.
Admit.
1 . The present petition has been fled for quashing of the criminal proceedings in
connection with FIR No. 32/2016, registered at police station Pendra, District Bilaspur
(now District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi) C.G., for the offence punishable under Section
384 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act and also praying for quashment
of entire charge sheet, judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 270/2016 and also the proceeding of
Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2021.
2. It is contended that both the parties have settled the dispute and the statements of
the parties have been recorded and they have contended that they do not want to
further continue with the criminal case as they have entered into the compromise,
therefore, the proceedings of the criminal case may be quashed. The parties have fled a
joint compromise application (Annexure-P/3) before the trial Court under Section
320(2) of Cr.P.C., in which the statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded.
3 . As per the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2, he has taken loan from the
petitioner and in lieu of which he has given a cheque to the petitioner, which was
returned by the concerned bank and hence the petitioner has preferred a complaint
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent No. 2 before the
competent Court. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 has lodged false and baseless FIR
No. 32/2016 at P.S. Pendra against the petitioner under Section 384 of IPC and Section
3 & 4 of Karja Act, in which after completion of investigation, the police has fled the
13-03-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa

charge-sheet and learned trial Court has framed the charges under the same Sections
and the case was fixed for prosecution witnesses, during the trial the prosecution has
examined as many as 8 witnesses before the trial Court. During the trial, as the
proceeding of Section 138 of NI Act was also pending against the respondent No. 2,
both the parties mutually agreed to settle the entire dispute and hence jointly preferred
compromise application before the trial Court under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., in which
the statement of respondent No. 2 was also recorded. Certified copy of compromise
application and compromise statements are collectively fled as Annexure-P/3. On the
basis of above mentioned compromise, the learned trial Court has acquitted the
petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 3 & 4 of Karja Act but convicted
him under Section 384 of IPC vide judgment dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure-P/4).
Thereafter, against the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
14/2021 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, under Section 374
of Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/5 and P/6). On the other hand, the trial Court had convicted the
respondent No. 2 on the complaint of petitioner fled under Section 138 of NI Act
(Annexure-P/7). After that respondent No. 2 has preferred an appeal, in which both the
parties mutually settled their dispute and Lok-Adalat has passed the award on
14.09.2019 on the basis of compromise entered between the parties (Annexure-P/8).
Now the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled their dispute and hence
prays for quashment of entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
4 . Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another
reported in MANU/SC/0781/2012 : (2012) Vol. 10 SCC 303, has stated that the position
that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding of FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz.; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
F.I.R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime in question and has laid down the above principles and
held that:
"In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process
of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer
and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
5. It is a well settled law that where the High Court is convinced that the offences are
entirely personal in nature and therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring
about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them.
6. Thus, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the
law relating to the continuance of criminal cases where the complainant and the accuse
had settled their differences and had arrived at an amicable arrangement and in view of

the statement made by the respondent No. 2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to
an end and the proceedings emanating thereupon needs to be quashed.
7 . The petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The CRMP stands
allowed. The FIR No. 32/2016 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Pendra,
District Bilaspur (now District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi) under Section 384 of Indian
Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Karja Act, judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Pendra Road in Criminal Case No. 270/2016 and the
proceeding of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2021
are hereby quashed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

(Lok-Adalat) Vikas Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and OCG202227012216360618COM998919

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Lok-Adalat) Vikas Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and OCG202227012216360618COM998919

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MANU/CG/0030/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

13-03-2022 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa

13-03-2022 (Page 2 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa

13-03-2022 (Page 3 of 3) www.manupatra.com The National Law University, Orissa

You might also like