The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in cases of compromise, as supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika (2011) 10 SCC 705.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State and Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case No. 342/2018 dated 30.10.2018 registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case in view of the compromise taken between both the parties, which is pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi.

4. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the written application of Sunil Manohar Wavikar, who is opposite party no. 2 in the present petition and happened to be the Manager Logistics Mahindra EPC Irrigation Limited. The EPC Industries Limited Company is established under Companies Act, 1956 and its registered office is at Nashik and he is the authorized person of the said Company throughout the State of Jharkhand and Bihar for taking any criminal or civil action against any other persons on behalf of the Company. The Company deals with Micro equipment's and business is spread all over the India including Jharkhand and Bihar. The allegation has been made in the F.I.R. that on the basis of an agreement, which was effective for three years i.e. from 01.04.2015 to 31.09.2018, the Company has appointed or selected Genesis Sale Corporation as a CNF Agent and, thereafter the Company was intending to get back its stock from the Genesis Sale Corporation, but the petitioners have refused to meet with the informant and did not return the stock. The allegation was that 390 Pumps amounting to Rs. 10.48 Lakhs was with them. Subsequently, the said agreement was cancelled and the accused persons were asked to return the stock and, thereafter, F.I.R. has been lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that now they have entered into a compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, this quashing petition has been filed. The said compromise petition is annexed as Annexure-2 of this petition. They further submit that they have settled the dispute which are arising out of the business rivalry and they are willing to maintain the good relation in the interest of business. They also submit that F.I.R. has been lodged under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. which are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been cheated. They further submit that this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They also submit that in the identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the case has been compromised, can exercise its power and the F.I.R. can be quashed. They rely upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705.

6. Paragraphs 7, 10, 18 and 19 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below:

“7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. which are not compoundable with or without the permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram Lal vs. State of J&K this Court referred to Section 320(9) Cr.P.C. to declare that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu vs. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, to be per