1. Bivash Chandra Thakur, S/o –Late Ganga Dhar Thakur, Age about 70 years, Resident v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Preeti Kumari, W/o –Abhinav Kumar, Resident of MIG
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1438 of 2023 1. Bivash Chandra Thakur, S/o –Late Ganga Dhar Thakur, Age about 70 years, Resident of MIG, A/37, Housing Colony, P.O.+ P.S.+ District –Dhanbad, Jharkhand. 2. Abhinav Kumar, S/o –Bivash Chandra Thakur, Age about -34 years, Resident of MIG, A/37, Housing Colony, P.O.+ P.S.+ District –Dhanbad, Jharkhand. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Preeti Kumari, W/o –Abhinav Kumar, Resident of MIG, A/37, Housing Colony, P.O.+ P.S.+ District –Dhanbad, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. 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 including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 /419 /463 /464 /470/120B /34 of Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to 2 Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2023 the Interlocutory Application No.4350 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of both the petitioners and the informant-opposite party no. 2; submits that therein it has been mentioned that both the parties have resolved their disputes and differences between them and compromised all cases existing between both sides including the present case and now both sides have decided not to reside in inimical terms. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute regarding default in payment in respect of commercial transaction and no public policy is involved in this case and as compromise has entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 be quashed. 4. Learned P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 in view of the compromise 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 3 Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2023 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 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, 4 Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2023 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 (Emphasis quash supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 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 of overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour. In view of compromise between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will certainly amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 qua the petitioners –Bivash Chandra Thakur and Abhinav Kumar be quashed and set aside. 5 Cr.M.P. No.1438 of 2023 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 qua the petitioners –Bivash Chandra Thakur and Abhinav Kumar is quashed and set aside. 9. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.4350 of 2023 is disposed of being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)