Raj Kumar Tekriwal vs The State of Bihar and S.K. Naseem

Lok Nath Prasad, J.—This application is u/s 482 of new Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner who is an accused in Chowk P.S. Case No. 54 of 1993 u/s 407 I.P.C. as against the State of Bihar and the opposite party No. 2 who is the informant of this case for quashing the F.I.R. of the aforesaid case.

The fact in short giving rise to this criminal case is that the opposite party No. 2 submitted a written report to the Chowk R.S. Patna City, alleging therein that a consignment of 24 cartoons of Soaps and Agarbatties was handed over to M/s Azad Transport Agency on 3.2.1993 for delivery to M/s Fancy Stories, Saharsa. The value of the entire consignment was Rs. 21,836.44 paise but the consignment in question was not delivered at Saharsa and so a request was made to the Petitioner who is a carrfer either to deliver the consignment or to make payment of Rs. 21,836.44 paise, the value of the consignment but that was not done and so a written report was submitted on 13.4.1993 and on that basis this case was instituted against this Petitioner.

It has been alleged by the Petitioner that admittedly the consignment was given to the Petitioner-company who is a carrier and in fact the consignment in question could not be delivered at the station because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the carrier as the consignment was loaded in a truck but the said truck was found missing alongwith the consignment and other articles. For that station diary entry No. 715 dated 20.1.1993 was made at Chowk P.S. So the Petitioner has no criminal intention or merisrea to misappropriate the value of the consignment, rather the dispute more or less was trivial, in nature. Moreover, the Petitioner filed a petition for grant of Anticipatory bail before this Court and the entire value of the consignment worth Rs. 21,836.44 paise was given to the Opposite party No. 2 through his lawyer through Demand Draft and the matter was compromised outside the Court between the parties and the informant who is the opposite party No. 2 has already been adequately compensated for the loss of consignment and as such the criminal case instituted by the opposite party No. 2 is now more or less infructuous and will simply lead to the harassment of the Petitioner and thus amount to misuse of the processes of the Court and thus prayed for quashing of the F.I.R.

During the course of argument learned lawyers of both the parties i.e. the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 frankly admitted before this Court that there was compromise between the parties and the entire value of the consignment which could not be delivered at the destination for the unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner and as such learned lawyer for the Opposite party No. 2 submitted that as the Opposite party No. 2 has already been adequately compensated so the Opposite party No. 2 is not willing to proceed with the criminal case and he has no objection if the F.I.R. is quashed. So from the submission made on behalf of both the parties and also from the averments made in the petition, it is clear that admittedly the Petitioner is a carrier and the consignment worth Rs. 21,836-44 paise which was given to the Petitioner could not be delivered due to unforeseen circumstances and the entire value of the consignment has already been paid to the opposite party No. 2 and the parties have compromised the case. For such reasons in any view of the matter if at all the criminal case is allowed to proceed there is a remote chance of success. Moreover, there is no criminal intention on the part of the Petitioner to misappropriate the value of the consignment and if the proceeding is allowed to continue it will simply cause harassment to both the parties. No doubt the alleged offence is uncompoundable but for the reasons mentioned above it was submitted that this Court in exercise of inherent power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the interest of justice is competent to quash the proceedings. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon two authorities-one of Orissa High Court reported in Shanta Bai Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and other, that of Delhi High Court reported in Anurag Chopra and Ors. v. State and Ors. 1989 Cri.L.J. 2227.

In view of the authorities cited above and also for the reasons that the parties have entered into compromise and in any view of the matter there is no chance that the criminal case will succeed if allowed to proceed and there was no criminal intention on the part of the Petitioner, this is a fit case in which prayer of the Petitioner is to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and F.I.R. of Chowk P.S. Case No. 54/93 is hereby quashed.