1. Anant Singh, aged about 34 years, s/o Bhupendra Singh 2. Prashant Singh, aged v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Alok Ranjan, s/o Sri. Kameshwar Mahto, r/o At-Abadganj
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1735 of 2024 1. Anant Singh, aged about 34 years, s/o Bhupendra Singh 2. Prashant Singh, aged about 29 years, s/o Bhupendra Singh 3. Ritu Singh, aged about 33 years, w/o Anant Singh 4. Bhupendra Singh, aged about 59 years, s/o Rohan Singh, all are r/o at –Madhepuri, P.O.-Katra, P.S.-Katra, Dist.-Sahjhapur, State-Uttar Pradesh .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Alok Ranjan, s/o Sri. Kameshwar Mahto, r/o At-Abadganj Muhalaa Ward No. 23 near Misan School, P.O. & P.S.-Town Medninagar, Dist.-Palamau, Jharkhand …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, 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 to quash the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 149, 327, 403, 424, 467, 466, 418, 420, 384, 504, 506, 511 and 120B of Indian Penal Code in which investigation of the case is going on. Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2024 1 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.5506 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the informant- opposite party no.2 has compromised the case with the petitioners and all the issues between the opposite party no.2 and the petitioners have been settled outside the Court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the petitioners are family friend of the opposite party no.2 and because of some misunderstanding, the dispute arose between them and now the same has been settled hence, the informant does not want to contest the instant case. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and as compromise has been entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 2018 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2024 2 connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 2018, 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 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 jurisdiction. 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. Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2024 3 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, 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 neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2024 4 criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the parties which has been amicably settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. Accordingly, the FIR and entire criminal proceeding in connection with Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 378 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.5506 of 2024 is 7. 8. 9. 10. disposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1735 of 2024 5