The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024 1. Rajesh Yadav @ Rajesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, S/o Shivnath Yadav 2. Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Shambhu Yadav 3. Dinesh Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Kamdeo Yadav 4. Shambhu Yadav @ Shambhu Mahto, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Jodho Mahto 5. Bhudev Yadav @ Bhudev Mahto, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Gyani Mahto 6. Charka Yadav @ Jairam Yadav, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Gyani Mahto 7. Saroj Yadav, aged about 35 years, S/o Late Mahadev Yadav 8. Gurudayal Mahto @ Gurudiyal Mahto, aged about 50 years , S/o Late Gyani Mahto 9. Baski Yadav @ Baski Mahto, aged about 55 years, S/o Late Kashi Mahto 10. Maheshwar Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Baski Yadav 11. Prakash Yadav, aged about 21 years, S/o Sudhir Mahto 12. Banku Yadav @ Banku Mahto, aged about 35 years, S/o Arjun Mahto 13. Ramdhari Prasad Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o Shivnath Yadav 14. Vishnu Yadav @ Vishnu Mahto, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Pokhan Mahto 15. Binod Kumar Yadav, aged about 33 years, S/o Shivnath Yadav 16. Chotu Yadav @ Chhoti Prasad Yadav, aged about 28 years, S/o Shivnath Yadav 17. Manoj Kumar Yadav, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Mahadev Yadav 18. Sitaram Yadav, aged about 33 years, S/o Haril Mahto 19. Kamdeo Yadav @ Kamdeo Mahto, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Tarni Mahto 20. Shivnath Mahto @ Sheonath Mahto, aged about 63 years, S/o Late Gyani Mahto All residents of vill- Domuhani, Madhupur, P.O. &P.S.- Madhupur, Dist.- Deoghar Versus ... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunita Devi, W/o Late Suresh Mahto, R/o Dohmuhani Madhupur, P.O. & P.S.- Madhupur, Dist. - Deoghar ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl.PP : Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv. 1 Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024 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 with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Madhupur P.S. Case no. 246 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 379, 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2- victim jointly submit drawing attention of the court to I.A. No. 5079 of 2024 that there it has been mentioned that the genesis of the dispute is purely personal and private dispute and both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and the counter case for the same alleged occurrence has also been compromised. It is next submitted that there was land dispute between the parties and there was a free fight between the parties and there was no intention of the petitioners to kill anybody and the investigation of the case is going on and nobody was seriously injured in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that in view of the full and final settlement between the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2, the opposite party no. 2 is not desirous to proceed with the case and the chance of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the court, hence, it is submitted that entire criminal proceedings in connection with Madhupur P.S. case no. 246 of 2023 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Madhupur P.S. case no. 246 of 2023 in view of the compromise between the parties. 2 Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024 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 of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in paragraph 29, has laid down the principles by which, the high court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties, and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings which, reads as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 3 Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is needless to mention that the dispute between the parties, is overwhelmingly and predominantly has a civil character and in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the case would put the 4 Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024 accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused by not quashing this criminal case and continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of law and in the interest of the justice, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Madhupur P.S. case no. 246 of 2023 be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Madhupur P.S. case no. 246 of 2023 is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and in view of the above, the aforesaid interlocutory application also stands deposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 15th May, 2024 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Cr.M.P. No. 1494 of 2024