Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory of J&K

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(J&K) 436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Ranjit Singh and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. – Respondents
CRM (M) No.228/2020, CrLM No.1037/2020 and CrLM No.800/2020
Decided on : 26-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) No.2:Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Advocate

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 417, 420 and 34-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 320 and 482-Cheating-Common intention-Quashing petition-Compromise between parties-Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled dispute-In such a case, High Court may quash criminal proceeding if in view of compromise between disputants, possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice-FIR in question registered at instance of respondent No. 2 against petitioners is one relating to a dispute predominately having a civil flavour arising out of a land dispute being basically private and personal in nature and having been amicably and mutually resolved-Further continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question would be unfair and contrary to interests of justice and in essence would amount to abuse of process of law-FIR quashed. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)
Result-Petition allowed.

Judgment

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.-Initially the instant petition came to be filed by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 145/2020 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 34 IPC 1860 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The FIR is contended to have been registered against the petitioners on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 who had offered to purchase the land of the petitioners’ situated at Haria Chak Jammu in the month of October, 2017 and is contended to have given 8 cheques to the petitioners amounting to Rs. 17 lacs out of which some of the cheques got bounced and information whereof was given by the petitioners to the above complainant with the request to replace the cheques.

3. The complainant is stated to be a property dealer having devised a mechanism to purchase properties by making some advance payments and then creating disputes thereafter. The complainant is stated to have in the case of the petitioners as well, made some payments to them for purchase of their land and then created a dispute resulting into registration of the FIR in question.

4. The petition came up for consideration initially before this Court on 14.08.2020, wherein the application for interim relief it was directed that the investigation in the FIR in question shall continue and that in the event charge sheet is intended to be filed in the court, same shall await orders of this court.

5. On 23.09.2020 when the matter came up for consideration, learned appearing counsel for the petitioners as also respondent No. 2 submitted at bar that a compromise has been entered into between them having been reduced into writing whereby the dispute amongst them has been resolved. The appearing counsels thus, sought settlement of the petition, as such.

6. On 09.10.2020, the compromise entered into between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 came to be placed on record through the medium of CM No. 1036/2020. In view of the said compromise the petitioners as also respondents No. 2 were directed on the very same date by this court to appear through virtual mode before the Registrar Judicial, for recording their statements in support of the compromise. Statement of the parties came to be recorded on 17.10.2020 which are part of the record. The statements of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 are extracted and reproduced respectively here under.

Statement of Ranjit Singh (petitioner No. 1); Age 58 years; S/o Daulat Singh; occupation; Central Govt., Employee; R/o B-22/241, Mohalla Mohabhat Nagar, Kapurthala on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with respondent no. 2 namely Ashwani Sharma. We have amicably settled all our disputes and issues in terms of above said agreement. I pray the Hon’ble Court to allow the petition and quash FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir

Statement of Rajinder Kour (petitioner No. 2); Age 50 years; W/o Ranjit Singh; occupation; Housewife; R/o B-22/241, Mohalla Mohabhat Nagar, Kapurthala on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise, vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with respondent no. 2 namely Ashwani Sharma. We have amicably settled all our disputes and issues in terms of above said agreement. I pray the Hon’ble Court to allow the petition and quash FIR No. 145/2020 for offences u/s 417, 420, 34, IPC 1860 registered with police Station, Rajbagh, Kathua, Jammu and Kashmir.

Statement of Ashwani Sharma, (respondent No. 2); Age 37 years; Occupation: Self employed S/o Darshan Lal Sharma; R/o Chak Dhari, Haria Chak, Marheen, Kathua, J&K on oath today i.e. 17.10.2020. Stated that I have entered into a compromise, vide agreement executed on 29.09.2020, with petitioner no. 1 namely Ranjit Singh and petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document