Nausaba Begum @ Nausaba, aged about 61 years, D/o Fazal Karim, wife of Late v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khusboo Parween @ Ftema, wife of Md. Firoz
Case Details
With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 1 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1289 of 2022 Nausaba Begum @ Nausaba, aged about 61 years, D/o Fazal Karim, wife of Late Najrul Haque, resident of Hamid Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Hirapur, Burnpur, District –West Burdwan, State –West Bengal. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Khusboo Parween @ Ftema, wife of Md. Firoz Akhter, D/o Late Md. Maqsood @ Pappu, resident of Village –Fasia Dangal, P.O. & P.S. – Godda, District –Godda. …. Opp. Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2022 1. Md. Sajid Akhtar @ Balister, aged about 36 years, son of Late Najmul Haque, resident of Hamid Nagar, P.O. & P.S. –Hirapur, Burnpur, District –West Bardwan, State –West Bengal. 2. Md. Arif Hussain @ Arfi, aged about 35 years, son of Late Najmul Haque, resident of Hamid Nagar, P.O. & P.S.-Hirapur, Burnpur, District –West Bardwan, State –West Bengal. 3. Md. Shahid Akhtar @ Sahid @ Md. Sahid Akhtar, aged about 39 years, son of Late Najmul Haque, resident of Hamid Nagar, P.O. & P.S. –Hirapur, Burnpur, District –West Bardwan, State –West Bengal. 4. Md. Qaiser Akhtar @ Kaish @ Md. Quiser Akhtar, aged about 30 years, son of Late Najmul Haque, resident of Hamid Nagar, Burnpur, P.O. & P.S. –Hirapur, Asansol, Burnpur, District –West Bardwan, State –West Bengal. 5. Shabana Parween @ Rani, aged about 37 years, wife of Md. Muktar Alam, resident of Navi Nagar, Dr. N.N. Ghosh Road, P.O. & P.S. – Raniganj, District –West Bardwan, State –West Bengal. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 2 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022
Facts
2. Khusboo Parween @ Fatema, wife of Md. Firoz Akhter, D/o Late Md. Maqsood Alam @ Pappu, resident of village –Fasia Dangal, P.O. & P.S. –Godda, District –Godda. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No. 1289 of 2022 is the mother-in-law (Saas) of the informant-opposite party no.2 and the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 of Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2022 are the brother-in-law (Dewar) and the petitioner no.5 of Cr.M.P. No. 1291 of 2022 is the sister-in-law With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 3 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022 (Nanad) of the informant-opposite party no.2. Drawing attention of this Court to the report of the mediator annexed with the settlement arrived at between the husband of the informant and the informant, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that upon successful mediation by the mediator appointed by the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, the dispute between the parties have been resolved amicably, hence the informant- opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. It is then submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 956 of 2021 including the order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 956 of 2021 including the order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 4 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022 Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 5. 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 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 With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 5 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022 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 quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of With Cr.M.P. No.1289 of 2022 6 Cr.M.P. No.1291 of 2022 mental depravity. Rather the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute between the opposite party no.2 and her husband. It is apparent that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused persons of the case merely because they are the relatives of the husband of the opposite party no.2. It is crystal-clear from the materials available on record that the said dispute has also been amicably resolved. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 956 of 2021 including the order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 956 of 2021 including the order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby the learned Magistrate found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 9.
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. : Mrs. Aarti Kumari, Advocate : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Verma, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Both the 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 in connection with Complaint Case No. 956 of 2021 including the order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate found
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th November, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)