Sudan Chandra Mahato vs The State of Jharkhand

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned counsel for the State. The entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case being C/1 Case No. 479 of 2000 including the order dated 28.7.2000 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. against the petitioners, is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their monetary dispute settled and thereby, they have entered into a compromise and to this effect an interlocutory application has also been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the case of the complainant, the complainant entered into a development agreement with the petitioners, the developers. After the land was developed by raising building over there, some dispute arose in between the complainant and the petitioners with respect to the share in the building, in question. With regard to that, even a suit was also filed. Now the parties have got their disputes resolved and, therefore, the prayer has been made to quash the order taking cognizance.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 admits that the parties have entered into compromise and thereby, a joint compromise petition by way of Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2025 of 2014 has also been filed.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that the dispute in between the parties being personal in nature never involves any public policy and thereby, in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, , it would be abuse of the process of the Court, if the petitioners are allowed to face the rigour of trial.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case being C/1 Case No. 479 of 2000 including the order taking cognizance dated 28.7.2000 is hereby, set aside, so far the above named petitioners are concerned. Thus, I.A. No. 2025 of 2014 also stands disposed of.