Ashika Stock Broking Limited, Ranchi vs The State of JHARKHAND and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad

In spite of service of notice upon opposite party No. 2, he did not choose to appear in this case.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 555 of 2006, including the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 417 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, a Company working as broker, dealing in shares.

It appears that the complainant lodged a complaint case stating therein that he opened an account with the petitioner-company for dealing in shares but the company never purchased those shares which had been instructed to be purchased, rather it purchased different shares. On that allegation, a complaint was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No. 555 of 2006. On holding inquiry, the court took cognizance of the offences u/s 406 and 417 of IPC against the petitioner. That order is under challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the case was lodged, the parties settled their dispute and arrived at an agreement and in terms of the agreement a sum of Rs. 80,000/-has been paid and further an arbitration proceeding initiated at the instance of the petitioner was withdrawn.

Learned counsel in support of his statement that an agreement arrived at in between the petitioner and the complainant referred to Annexure-3, which is an agreement, and under this situation, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 417 of IPC against the petitioner has been sought to be quashed in view of the decision rendered in a case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that if the dispute is personal in nature, the compromise, arrived at, be acted upon and on that basis, this case be quashed.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, It does appear that on filing of a complaint cognizance of the offences was taken against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 417 of IPC. Subsequently, the parties have come to an agreement whereby according to learned counsel for the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-has already been paid in terms of the compromise, arrived at in between the parties. Since the dispute, which appears to be personal in nature, has already been settled, no useful purpose would be served allowing the petitioner to face rigor of trial.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 555 of 2006, including the order dated 14.6.2006 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi under which cognizance of the offences has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed.

In the result, this application is allowed.