The High Court
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.798 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.798 of 2019 ------ 1. Dhaneshwar Sahu, Age about 25 Years, Son of Sri Ramkeshwar Sahu, 2. Sumanti Devi, Age about 28 Years, Son of Sri Suresh Sahu, 3. Suresh Sahu, Age about 32 Years, Son of Sri Ramkeshwar Sahu, 4. Ramkeshwar Sahu, Age about 52 Years, Son of Late Mahendra Sahu,
Legal Reasoning
5. Bandhan Devi, Age about 49 Years, Wife of Sri Ramkeshwar Sahu All are Resident of Village- Nari, Nawadih, P.O. & P.S.- Kisko, District- Lohardaga … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Bimla Devi, Wife of Sri Dhaneshwar Sahu, Daughter of Sri Digamber Sahu, Resident of Village- Sosai Ashram Mandar, P.O. & Opposite Parties P.S.- Mandar, District- Ranchi … ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, 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 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.4892 of 2018 involving the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act whereby and where under the 1 Cr. M.P. No.798 of 2019 learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 page-11 and 12 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 31.03.2023 filed by the petitioner which is the report of the Mediation prepared by the Mediator, Civil Court, Ranchi and therein it has been mentioned that with the consent of both the parties, the dispute between the parties has been settled by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the offences involved in the dispute have arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner No.1 is the husband of the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are the relatives of the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and there is no involvement of any public policy. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as the
Decision
order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.4892 of 2018, as prayed for by the petitioners be quashed. 4. Having heard the rival 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 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 2 Cr. M.P. No.798 of 2019 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 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.; for quashing criminal cannot provide 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 for any basis 3 Cr. M.P. No.798 of 2019 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 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)” 5. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor are they serious offences of mental depravity rather the same relates to matrimonial dispute. 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/petitioners 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. The case is at the nascent stage and the charge has not yet been framed. 7. Hence, in view of the facts involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.4892 of 2018, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of May, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 4