AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Toppo, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 60 of 2008 including the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tenughat, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 409, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The allegation made in the complaint petition is to the effect that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- on 14.8.2002 at Nodkhurki Post Office under the Monthly Income Scheme in which Rs. 792/- was supposed to be paid to the complainant. It has also been alleged that the payment has been made up to December, 2002 and thereafter no payment has been made. Subsequently she could come to know that the petitioner had taken the Pass Book from the complaint and in fact he had withdrawn the money in connivance of the Post Master and got it misappropriated.
Based on the aforesaid information the complaint case was instituted in which after conducting enquiry u/s 202 cognizance has been taken on 20.10.2008 for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 409, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the complaint, the matter has been settled and based on the same, the criminal case instituted against co-accused, Ramesh Yadav has been quashed in Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2013 vide order dated 13.01.2014. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of co-accused Ramesh Yadav and therefore the petitioner also deserves the same treatment.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has admitted about the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the complainant and submitted that he has got no objection that if the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner is also quashed.
It appears from the order dated 13.01.2014 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2999 of 2013 that considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner it was concluded that no offence u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
So far as the question of compromise is concerned the dispute is purely personal in nature and considering the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in [(2008) 4 SCC 582] the order taking cognizance so far as the co-accused Ramesh Yadav was quashed.
Taking cue from the judgment which has been passed in the case of other co-accused and since the dispute is settled with the petitioner also which is personal in nature, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 60 of 2008 including the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Tenughat, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 409, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner is quashed.
This application is, accordingly, allowed.