IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Criminal Writ Jurisdiction)

W.P(Cr.) No. 327 of 2022

Prakash Kumar Agarwal, aged about 50 yrs., s/o Sri Bridhi Chand

Agarwalla, r/o Ratanji Road, Purana Bazar, PO & PS-Dhansar, District-

Dhanbad ….......Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2. M/s Shree Metaliks Ltd., Main Road Badbil, PO & PS-Badbil, District-

Orissa-758035

3. Ashok Kumar Agarwall (Director), s/o late Ramchandra Agarwalla, r/o

Power House Road, PO-Rourkela, PS-Plant Site, Dist.Sundargarhy (Orissa)

-769004

4. Murlidhar Agarwal (Director) s/o late Badri Pd. Agarwalla, r/o Shyam

Sunder Apartment, PO & PS-Badbil, District-Orissa-758035

5. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (Managing Director) S/o late Ramcharan

Agarwalla, r/o Gurudwara Road, Badbil, PO & PS-Badbil, District-Orissa-

758035

6. Kishore Kumar Agarwalla, s/o late Ram Charan Agarwalla r/o C-2/31

Rajasthali Apartment Pitampura, PO & PS-Pitampura, District-Delhi-

110034

7. Sandeep Agarwalla s/o late Radhe Shyam Agarwalla, r/o 233 Kamat Villa,

PO & PS-Panjim, District-Goa-403001 …....Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate

For the Resp. Nos.2 to 7 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate

For the State of Jharkhand :Mr. S. Bhawmik, AC to SC-V

-------

Order No.04 /Dated: 14

^th February 2023

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the

petitioner seeks permission to make necessary correction in the petition to

the extent that this petition may be treated under Article 226 of the

Constitution r/w section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short,

“Cr.PC”).

2.

Prayer is allowed to the above extent.

3.

Let necessary corrections be carried out by the learned counsel

for the petitioner at appropriate places with red ink during course of the day.

4.

The petitioner who is the complainant in C.P Case No.168 of

2 W.P(Cr) No.327 of 2022

2019 is aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court to refuse the petition for

withdrawal of the case moved by him.

5.

By an order dated 27^th June 2019 passed in C.P Case No.168 of

2019, the learned trial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under

sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

6.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appears for the

respondent nos.2 to 7 who have been made accused in C.P Case No. 168 of

2019 and against whom processes have been issued.

7.

What is important in this case is that on a complaint made by

the petitioner cognizance of the offences under sections 420 and 120B IPC

has been taken by the Court. No doubt this is not an unfettered right in a

complainant to withdraw the case at any stage, the law having regard to

different situations which may prompt the complainant to withdraw the case

has made a provision under section 320 Cr.PC for compounding of the

offence. In line with the aforesaid legislative intendment, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in “B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana” (2003) 4 SCC 675,

“Gian Singh v. State of Jharkhand” (2012) 10 SCC 303 and “Narinder

Singh v. State of Punjab” (2014) 6 SCC 466 has observed that the powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in the interest

of justice. There is no doubt that institution of a criminal case and issuance

of processes entail serious civil and criminal consequences against the

accused. Now if the complainant himself wants to withdraw the case which

in turn may encourage peace, harmony and brotherhood in the Society, the

High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC or

the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash the

complaint or permit the complainant to withdraw the case.

8.

Mr