ASHOK BAMBA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are Directors of a Finance Company run under name and style of Panbakhtar Finance Ltd. at 147-C, A/D, Gandhi Nagar Jammu (Finance Company for short). The respondent No. 2 is an account holder with the Finance Company and admittedly deposited some amount with the Finance Company expecting good returns on the investments so made. The respondent No. 2 disappointed by failure of the Finance Company to make the payments and also inclusion of name of his son - the respondent No. 3 herein, as one of the Directors of the Finance company, allegedly on forged and fabricated documents, rushed to Chief Judicial Magistrate Jammu with a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420,467, 468 read with 120-B RPC against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to 5. Learned CJM, in turn, forwarded the complaint to P/S Crime Branch, Jammu in terms of Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C where upon case FIR 15/2007 dated 9.4.2007 was registered at the Police Station, Crime Branch, Jammu.

(2.) The differences and disagreement between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner as also the other Directors of the Finance Company, did not stay for long. The parties who seemingly enjoyed fairly good business relations prior to registration of case FIR 15/2007, seem to have buried the hatchet and entered into a compromise. It appears that the petitioner and other Directors of the Finance company who initially due to financial crises were unable to make the payments to the respondent No. 2, have now made a resolve to set right his grievances and return the deposits alongwith the interest/profit accrued thereon. The only hiccup in restoration of peace and cordial relations between the parties, is the criminal case viz FIR No. 15/2007 that was initially expected by the respondent to be serve as a tool to get his grievances redressed.

(3.) The petitioner invoking inherent powers of the court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C prays for quashment of FIR 15/2007 P/S Crime Branch, Jammu Under Section 402, 467 and Section 120-B RPC. The grounds urged in the petition are that dispute between the parties given colour of an offence, was in essense of civil nature and a personal dispute and that the parties having entered into a compromise, the criminal proceedings initiated were futile and to serve no purpose. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the stand spelt out in the petition, states that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and giving it colour of criminal case is an abuse of process of law. It is argued that the investigation, enquiry or trial, if any, embarked upon in consequence of Fir 15/2007, is bound to be a unnecessary and avoidable burden on the police machinery and state exchequer and that having regard to the surrounding circumstances and nature of the dispute, the FIR 15/2007 was deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers vested in the court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner to buttress his arguments places reliance on law laid down in B S Joshi v. State of Haryana, 2003 4 SCC 675, NIKHIL MERCHANT v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 2008 9 SCC 677.