Zafar Ali @ Jafar Ali vs State of Jharkhand and another

R.R. Prasad

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

A complaint bearing no.1650 of 2009 was filed by the complainant against the petitioner on the allegation that in spite of supply of the materials payments were not made to him. On such complaint, cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken, vide order dated 1.2.2010 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi. That order has been challenged in this application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this application good sense prevailed upon the parties who got their dispute settled whereby the amount which was agreed to be paid has already been paid and thereby they arrived at a compromise and hence, a joint compromise petition has been filed in this Court and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance be quashed, in view of the ratia laid down in a case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, .

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 admitted that the parties have settled their dispute and that opposite party has received the entire money which was due to be paid to the petitioner.

Admittedly, the parties have entered into a compromise. In that view of the matter, it would not be proper to allow criminal proceeding to continue as there would be a little possibility of accused being convicted. In such situation, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a case referred to above has observed as follows:

We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.

Here in the instant case, the dispute which was involved in between the parties is purely personal in nature and no public policy is involved in the dispute.

Accordingly, the compromise petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. Consequently, the entire proceeding of Complaint case no.1650 of 2009 including the order dated 1.2.2010 is hereby quashed.

In the result, this application is allowed.