Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1251 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1251 of 2023 Afroz Alam, aged about 38 years, S/o Sarfaraj Ahmad, R/o Azad Basti, Dora Bakery Gali, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi .. Petitioner Versus
Legal Reasoning
1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anup Kumar, S/o Sri Brahmanand Mahato, R/o village- Arguthia, P.O. & P.S.- Fathepur, Dist.- Jamtara ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Adv. : Ms. Vandan Bharti, Addl..PP 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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the F.I.R. being Fatehpur P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 (G.R. No. 714 of 2012) for the offence under Sections 420, 120B, 406, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code., pending before the court of the JMFC, Jamtara 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 I.A. No. 3901 of 2023, which is a joint application for compromise, supported by the separate affidavits of both the opposite party no. 2 and the one of the victims namely Shripati Nath Yadav as well as the petitioner and submits that therein, it has been mentioned that during the pendency of the criminal case, both parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court in the interest of long lasting peace and harmony and apart from signing a memorandum of agreement, the opposite party no. 2 and other victims have decided to separately swear affidavit in support of the contention that they have voluntarily decided to settle the issue. It is next submitted that the case is still in the state of investigation; hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1251 of 2023 petitioner that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the F.I.R. being Fatehpur P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 (G.R. No. 714 of 2012) be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. PP submits that in view of compromise between the parties, the State is having no serious objection to the payer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the F.I.R. being Fatehpur P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 (G.R. No. 714 of 2012). 5. 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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and 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 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 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1251 of 2023 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 there is any serious offence of mental depravity rather the same are having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour. 7. Because of the compromise between the offender and the victims, 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. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the F.I.R. being Fatehpur P.S. Case No.38 of 2012 (G.R. No. 714 of 2012) is quashed and set aside.
Decision
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no. I.A. No. 3901 of 2023 is disposed of being infructous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 8th May, 2023 Smita /AFR