DEEN DAYAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. K. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Kumar Sundaram, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners in this application have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C. P. Case No. 113 of 2016 including the order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Bokaro whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 406 / 415 / 420 / 468 / 471 / 34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) A complaint case was instituted in which it was stated that the petitioner no. 2 was the proprietor of Shree Shankar Industries Oil Mills, Bharatpur, Rajasthan and was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of Mustard Oil and since during the pendency of purchase order, there was an increase in the price of Mustard Oil, the petitioner no. 2 has cancelled the order of opposite party no. 2 in order to earn more profit. It has been alleged that the accused no. 1 has filed the civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 41,000/- and odds in terms of the letter dated 01.06.2015 which is the purchase order which the complainant has claimed was a fabricated document. It has thus been alleged that the accused no. 1 in connivance with the petitioner no. 1 has forged and fabricated the letter dated 01.06.2015 and on the basis of the same, a complaint case being C. P. Case No. 113 of 2016 was instituted. Upon conducting an inquiry, cognizance was taken under Section 406/415/420/468/471/34 of I.P.C . After institution of the complaint case, good sense has prevailed and in pursuance of compromise having been entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.06.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the compromise so arrived at and in view of the supplementary agreement in which the opposite party no. 2 has decided to withdraw the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Kumar Sundaram, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has echoed what has been stated by Mr. N. K. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that he does not have any grievance against the petitioner.