The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1141 of 2024 ------ 1. Shrikant Zaveri @ Srikant Gopal Das Zaveri, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shri. Gopaldas Tribhovandas Zaveri; 2. Raashi Zaveri @ Rashi Srikant Zaveri, aged about 37 years, daughter of Mr. Shrikant Zaveri; and 3. Binaisha Zaveri @ Binaisha Shrikant Zaveri, aged about 42 years, daughter of Mr. Shrikant Zaveri; all directors of Tribhovandan Bhimji Zaveri (TBZ), having its registered office at 241/43, Zaveri Bazar, PO – Kalbadevi & PS – L.T. Marg, District – Mumbai – 400002, Maharashtra. 4. Souparna Choudhari @ Choudhary, aged about 52 years, Son of
Legal Reasoning
Late Shri Swatan Gobinda Chaudhary, working as Area Business Manager of Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Limited (TBZ), having his office at Saraswati Niketan, 5 CAMAC Street, PO – Park Street & PS- Shakespeare, Sarani, District- Kolkata – 700016, State – West Bengal … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nawal K. Agiwal, aged about 60 years, s/o Late Lala Prasad Agiwal, resident of 2, GK Apartments, Contractors Area, PO & PS - Opposite Parties Bistupur, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum … ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate Mr. Aditya M. Khandelwal, Advocate : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Anjani Nandan, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 1 Cr. M.P. No.1141 of 2024 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 proceedings in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. 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.4980 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavit of the Pairvikar of the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that the dispute arose because of misunderstanding between the parties and they have sorted out their misunderstanding and dispute between them and because of compromise arrived at between the parties, the informant is not interested to prosecute the case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is a financial and private dispute and there is no public interest involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for 2 Cr. M.P. No.1141 of 2024 quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. 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:- “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 3 Cr. M.P. No.1141 of 2024 for any basis 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 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)” 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same relate to financial and private dispute between the parties. 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing 4 Cr. M.P. No.1141 of 2024 the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No.65 of 2024 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.4980 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of May, 2024 AFR/ Animesh-Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.1141 of 2024