The High Court
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.197 of 2023 ------ 1. Shivlal Mahto, aged about 52 years, son of Sri Bigan Mahto, resident of Village- Bahera, Panchayat Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 2. Deoki Mahto, aged about 59 years, son of Sri Bigan Mahto, resident of 39, Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 3. Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Sri Shiv Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Tapin South, P.O.- Tapin, P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag;
Legal Reasoning
4. Gopal Mahato, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Mohan Mahato, Sri Santosh Kumar Roy, resident of Village- Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 5. Dev Narayan Mahto, aged about 46 year, son of Sri Dahar Mahato, resident of Village- Bahera, Panchayat- Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 6. Santosh Rai @ Santosh Kumar Roy, aged about 56 years, son of Late Basant Rai, resident of 45, Kata, Village- Bahera, Panchayat- Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 7. Shakti Devi, aged about 41 years, wife of Sri Santosh Kumar Roy, resident of 45, Kata, Village- Bahera, Panchayat- Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 8. Rahul Rai @ Rahul Kumar Ray, aged about 31 years, son of Sri Santosh Kumar Roy, resident of 45, Kata, Village- Bahera, Panchayat- Bahera, P.O. & P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; 9. Jitendra Rai @ Jitendra Ray, aged about 41 years, son of Sri Nageshwar Ray, Sri Santosh Kumar Roy, resident of Village- Bahera, Panchayat- Bahera, P.O.- Tapin, P.S.- Charhi, District- Hazaribag; … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anil Hembrom, aged about 33 years, son of Sri Rajaram Manjhi, 1 Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 resident of Village- Phusri, P.O.- Tapin, P.S.- Charhi, District- Opposite Parties Hazaribag. … For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------ : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Akchansh Kishore, Advocate Mr. Pandey N. Rai, Advocate : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 385 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 (1) (r)/(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribag. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.2461 of 2023 which has been filed on the basis of compromise and supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioners as well as the opposite party No.2-victim and submit that therein it has been mentioned that good sense has prevailed between the parties with the intervention of well-wishers and common friends and the dispute between the parties got settled vide memorandum of settlement dated 19.01.2023 which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the instant Cr.M.P. It is next jointly submitted that 2 Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 the petitioners and opposite party No.2 have buried their hatchets without threat, coercion and undue influence and they do not have any grievance. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no societal interest involved in the offence committed and the offence committed is purely a private affair between the opposite party No.2/informant/victim and the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the court and in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh, as prayed for by the petitioners. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under:- 3 Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 “11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) “61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In for any basis 4 Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)” 6. In the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 96 , the Apex Court has held as under in paragraph-16:- “16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.” (emphasis supplied) 7. It appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of caste of the victim. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there serious offences of mental depravity and of the compromise between parties, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court because of the reason that in view of settlement between the and restoration of harmony between the parties; the underlying objective of the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not be contravened or diminished even if the crime in question goes unpunished. 5 Cr. M.P. No.197 of 2023 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Charhi P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 dated 03.10.2021 which is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hazaribagh, as prayed for by the petitioners is quashed and set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 10. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of May, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 6