1. Md. Rustam Alam @ Md. Rustam, aged about 28 years, son of Md v. 1. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.1725 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1725 of 2020 ------ 1. Md. Rustam Alam @ Md. Rustam, aged about 28 years, son of Md. Sahjad. 2. Md. Sohrab Hussain, aged about 35 years, son of Md. Sahjad 3. Md. Sajjad @ Md. Shahajad, aged about 65 years, son of Abdul Latif. 4. Saloha Khatun @ Saleha Bibi, aged about 64 years, wife of Saleha Md. Sahjad. All are resident of Village- Baddiha, P.O- Mirzaganj, P.S.- Jamua, District- Giridih. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand … Petitioners 2. Gulnaj Parween @ Gulnaj Parveen, wife of Md. Rustam @ Md. Rustam Alam, Daughter of Md. Islam, resident of Village- Baddiha, P.O.- Mirzaganj, P.S.- Jamua, District- Giridih, presently residing at Village- Amwatikar, P.O. and P.S.- Wo, District- Latehar. … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate ------ 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in which the 1 Cr. M.P. No.1725 of 2020 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and ordered for issue of summons to the petitioners and further to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.399 of 2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.4672 of 2023 which is supported by the affidavit filed by the petitioners and the opposite party No.2-victim and submit that therein it has been mentioned that both the parties have resolved their dispute by agreeing to get separated and they will not continue the matrimonial relationship. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the full and final settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.399 of 2016. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention 2 Cr. M.P. No.1725 of 2020 here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & 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 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, for any basis 3 Cr. M.P. No.1725 of 2020 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 is there any serious offence of mental depravity rather the same relates to matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2. 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and the entire criminal 4 Cr. M.P. No.1725 of 2020 proceeding of Complaint Case No.399 of 2016, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar and the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.399 of 2016 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named above only. 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., Interlocutory Application No.4672 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of July, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 5