The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1518 of 2023 1. Sumit Sadhwani, aged about 35 years, son of late Subhash Chandra Sadhwani, resident of Sindhipara, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, Dist.- Pakur 2. Kishan Lakhwani @ Jaikishan Lakhmani, aged about 39 years, son of late Khem Chand Lakhmani, resident of Ashirwad Traders, Paltania Road, Near Patna Chowk, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S.- Barharwa, Dist. Sahibganj 3. Gautam Shukla @ Shuklaji, aged about 59 years, son of late Jitendranath Sukla, resident of Hatpara, P.O. & P.S.- Barhwara, Dist. Sahibganj .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mangla Malto, son of late Munshi Malto, resident of Village Paktori Pahar, P.O. & P.S.- Tinpahar, Dist. Sahibganj …. 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 the Opp. Party No.2 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Raj Lakshmi Mishra, 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 FIR in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 307, 506, 420 and 468 of 2 Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2023 Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.6280 of 2023 which is a joint compromise petition supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have arrived at the conclusion that it would be proper to get the dispute settled and consequently, the compromise has taken place between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and the dispute is a private dispute between the parties and in view of the complete compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that for the ends of justice the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2020 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2020 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 3 Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2023 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 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 4 Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2023 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 (Emphasis quash supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor any serious offences of mental depravity is alleged to have taken place rather the alleged offence has occurred because of civil dispute between the parties and this case is predominantly of civil flavour. 7. Because of the compromise between the offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would certainly put the accused- petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme 5 Cr.M.P. No.1518 of 2023 injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2020 be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No. 86 of 2020 is quashed and set aside. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 11. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.6280 of 2023 is disposed of being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 26th July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)