Latest News
Back
Document:
Jharkhand High Court Quashed the FIR and criminal proceeding after both the party sworn the affidavit for quashing the FIR
Jharkhand High Court Quashed the FIR and criminal proceeding after both the party swore the affidavit for quashing the FIR
The Jharkhand high court in a recent judgement said that if both the parties have mutually agreed to settle down a compoundable offence and sworn in the affidavit for quashing the FIR then the court will not interfere in the matter. This judgement was given in the case of Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. The state of Jharkhand which was decided by the single judge bench of MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI. By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR lodged in Sadar (Palamau) Sahar PS Case No.219/2016 dated 01.09.2016 registered under section 120(B), 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj. The reason for filing the FIR was that the Opposite Party no.2-informant stating that a total sum of Rs.3, 28,000/- was taken by the petitioner for obtaining a dealership of organic manure.
The petitioner submits that that now the amount in question has been paid over to the Opposite Party no.2 by way of bank draft and since the cause of the dispute has been resolved there is no need for the proceedings and FIR. The sections mentioned in the FIR are Sec.34 OF IPC which describes Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, Sec.120 (B) talks about punishment of criminal conspiracy Sec 406 IPC talks about Punishment for criminal breach of trust and at the last Sec. 420 of IPC discusses Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
The State counsel submitted that the sections are compoundable with the permission of the Court and since both the parties have compromised the matter the FIR may be quashed.
The High Court referred to paragraphs no. 7, 10, 18 and 19 of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shiji v. Radhika. In this judgement, the Supreme Court laid down the rules regarding the settlement of the dispute in cognisable offences and non-cognizable offences.
In view of the above judgement and the facts of the case, the Jharkhand high court decided that Opposite Party No.2 has received the amount and no fruitful purpose will serve if the instant petition is not allowed.
In continuation of the judgement the Jharkhand High court further said that to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the FIR dated 01.09.2016 as well as the entire criminal proceeding of Sadar (Palamau) Sahar PS Case No.219/2016 dated 01.09.2016 corresponding to G.R. No.1506/2016 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj is quashed.
“This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On the Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1) (A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, Legal Xpress shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.”
Document:
