1. Shrey Kumar @ Shrya Kumar, age about 35 years, son of Late Ashok v. …
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 1. Shrey Kumar @ Shrya Kumar, age about 35 years, son of Late Ashok Kumar Singh 2. Ranjana Singh, aged 54 years, wife of Late Ashok Kumar Both residents of near Denobili N. School, Indrapuri, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, Dist- Ranchi Versus …... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jaya Kumari Singh, D/o Arun Kumar Singh, resident of Karmik Nagar, Seraidhela, P.O.& P.S.- Seraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shankar Kumar, Adv. : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl.PP : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. 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 with a prayer for quashing and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance in connection with the Seraidhela P.S. case no. 147 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 745 of 2022 pending in the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge, III cum Commercial Court, Dhanbad wherein learned Magistrate, has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498A/307 of the IPC, under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act; on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly draws attention of the court to the Annexure 4, which is the settlement arrived at before the National Lok Adalat held at Civil Court Dhanbad, on 10.02.2023. It is further jointly submitted that both the parties have settled the dispute 2 Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 before the mediation center, Dhanbad and both the parties to this case, have settled the dispute and differences forever. 4. It is jointly further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and no public policy is involved in the offence and dispute is purely private in nature. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been involved in this case, on the allegation that the petitioners assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with stick on her head but there is no allegation that any injury has been caused to the opposite party no. 2, so it is a case where section 307 of IPC is not made out, on the basis of the allegation and the materials in the record. 6. It is next jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that since the parties have compromised the matter, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the court hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Seraidhella P.S. case no. 147 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 745 of 2022 , including the order taking cognizance be quashed. 7. Learned Addl. PP has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance, in view of the compromise arrived between the parties. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has summed up and laid down the following the principles by which, the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceeding or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with 3 Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 the criminal proceeding by observing thus in paragraph 29, which reads as under:- “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on Cr. M.P. No.821 of 2023 3 society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be 4 Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the Cr. M.P. No.821 of 2023 4 trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied) On the basis of the material in the record, this court is of the considered view that a complete settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the informant is not interested in proceeding with the prosecution of the petitioners. 9. Further this case is at the nascent stage and the charge has not yet been framed and the facts of the case is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the dispute between the parties is admittedly a matrimonial dispute and to make the offence more grave and serious the offences punishable under section 307 IPC as well as the penal provisions under the Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practices Act, was ornamentally added, thus in the considered opinion of this court and in view of compromise between the parties, the chance of conviction is bleak and remote and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him if the criminal case is not quashed despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 5 Cr.M.P. No. 649 of 2023 10. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor they are serious offences of mental depravity. Because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, continuation of the criminal case would tantamount to the abuse of the process of court and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Seraidhela P.S. case no. 147 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 745 of 2022 pending in the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge, III, cum Commercial Court, Dhanbad be put to an end. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of in connection with Seraidhela P.S. case no. 147 of 2019 corresponding to S.T. No. 745 of 2022 pending in the court of District and Additional Sessions Judge, III, cum Commercial Court, Dhanbad, including the order taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/307 IPC, under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, is quashed and set aside. 12.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 24th April, 2023 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)