1. Chhitar Mall Dhoot, aged about 72 years, son of Ramanand Dhoot, resident of v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dumka Singh, aged about 45 years, son of
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.258 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 258 of 2024 1. Chhitar Mall Dhoot, aged about 72 years, son of Ramanand Dhoot, resident of plot no.337, Ramtekrl, P.O. & P.S.-Jugsalai, Dist.- East Singhbhum 2. Nishant Dhoot, aged about 48 years, son of Chhitar Mal Dhoot, resident of H. No.9, Diagonal Road, Naredi Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Bishtupur, Dist.-East Singhbhum .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dumka Singh, aged about 45 years, son of late Dwrga Charan Singh, resident of Sakin, Village- Asanbani, P.O. & P.S.- Chandil, Dist.-Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 By the Court:- : Ms. Neeta Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Vishal Kr. Trivedi, Advocate ….. 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the First Information Report of Saraikella Chandil P.S. Case no. 153 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 387, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 amended 2015, 2 Cr.M.P. No.258 of 2024 2018, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Saraikella. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly draws attention of the court to the I.A. No. 1982 of 2024, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opp. party no. 2- the informant and submits that therein, it has been mentioned that parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and they have no grievance with each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further jointly submit that in view of the compromise between the parties, the opposite party no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the case, hence, the chance of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is then submitted that the petitioners did not intentionally did anything only because the opposite party no.2 is a member of Schedule Tribe but because of the heat of the moment the opposite party no.2 has also alleged commission of the offences punishable under the penal provisions of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the case hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Saraikella Chandil P.S. Case no. 153 of 2023, will amount to abuse of the process of law and no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise has been entered into between the parties, hence, it is jointly submitted that the First Information 3 Cr.M.P. No.258 of 2024 4. 5. Report of Saraikella Chandil P.S. Case no. 153 of 2023, be quashed against the petitioners. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of quashing of the First Information Report of Saraikella Chandil P.S. Case no. 153 of 2023 in view of the compromise between the parties. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has 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 :- 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 jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) inherent “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 4 Cr.M.P. No.258 of 2024 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 any basis 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 other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to the criminal proceeding or continue with 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 (Emphasis quash the criminal proceeding.” supplied) 5 Cr.M.P. No.258 of 2024 6. 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 person to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 7. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners be put to an end. Accordingly, the First Information Report of Saraikella Chandil P.S. Case no. 153 of 2023, against the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. 8. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.1982 of 2024 is disposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 28th February, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)