1. Paresh Mandal, aged about 62 years, s/o late Atulya Mandal 2. Dashu Mandal v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anandita Ma
Case Details
With 1 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 711 of 2022 1. Paresh Mandal, aged about 62 years, s/o late Atulya Mandal 2. Dashu Mandal @ Daju Mandal aged about 52 years, s/o Paresh Mandal 3. Sanjay Mandal aged about 31 years, s/o Paresh Mandal 4. Vikal Mandal @ Vikash Mandal aged about 51 years, s/o Atulya Mandal 5. Ashwin Mandal @ Ashim Mandal aged about 43 years, s/o Vikal Mandal All R/o Kolakusma, Near Hari Mandir, K.G. Ashram, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anandita Mandal, w/o Niranjan Mandal, r/o Steel Gate, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1813 of 2022 Niranjan Mandal, aged about 35 years, s/o Paresh Mandal, R/o Kolakusma, Near Hari Mandir, K.G. Ashram, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist.- Dhanbad .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anandita Mandal, w/o Niranjan Mandal, r/o Steel Gate, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY With 2 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 ….. : Mr. Shailesh, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 4073 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.711 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the relatives of the husband of the opposite party no.2 at the time of institution of the F.I.R. and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1813 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the husband of the opposite party no.2 at the time of institution of F.I.R. 4. 5. Today both the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 and the opposite party no.2 of both the petitions are present in this Court. A joint supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein, it has been mentioned that vide order dated 16.11.2022 of this Court, mediation took place between the parties and a settlement has With 3 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 been arrived at between the parties which has been described in detail in paragraph no.3 of this supplementary affidavit. 6. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that since the compromise petition has been effected to between the parties amicably hence, continuance of a criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court and no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings after the compromise between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 4073 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed. 7. 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 With 4 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint jurisdiction. The in the exercise of 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 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 With 5 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 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 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 (Emphasis supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 8. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in these cases are not heinous offences nor there is serious offences of mental depravity rather the same has resulted from a marital discord between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 of Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022. 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. 9. After going through the materials in the record and also the presence of both the petitioner and opposite party no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1813 of 2022 has specified that the parties have resolved their entire dispute and it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 of Cr.M.P. No. 1813 of 2022 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce in O..S. No. 2297 of 2017 of the court of Family Court, Ghajiabad. With 6 Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.1813 of 2022 10. 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 miscellaneous petitions vide Cr.M.P. No.711 of 2022 and Cr.M.P. No. 1813 of 2022 be put to an end. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.44 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 4073 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. 12. In this result, both the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th March, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)