Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Kumar, S/o late Sudama Prasad Yadav, aged about 60 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arun Kumar Dev S/o Birendra Prasad Rai aged
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2111 of 2023 ------ Dilip Kumar Yadav @ Dilip Kumar, S/o late Sudama Prasad Yadav, aged about 60 years, R/o Mohalla Belwatika, PO/PS-Daltonganj, Dist-Palamau. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arun Kumar Dev S/o Birendra Prasad Rai aged about 32 years, R/o 10/7 Jangta Flat, Harmu Housing Colony, Dist-Ranchi Opposite Parties (Informant). … ------ For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Avishek Prasad, 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 taking cognizance dated 17.01.2023 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.344/2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2658/2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323/34, 341/34 and 325/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of this Court to Annexure No.1 which is the agreement arrived at between the daughter of the petitioner and opposite party no.2 and submits that a settlement has been arrived at between the daughter of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 regarding full and final settlement of all the disputes between them. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that genesis of the 1 Cr. M.P. No.2111 of 2023 occurrence was the matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and in view of the settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 fairly submits that in view of the compromise and settlement between the parties, the opposite party no.2 is no more interested to proceed with the case against the petitioner. 5. Learned Spl.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 taking cognizance dated 17.01.2023 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.344/2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2658/2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323/34, 341/34 and 325/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 6. 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 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 2 Cr. M.P. No.2111 of 2023 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, 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 for any basis 3 Cr. M.P. No.2111 of 2023 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)” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same are private dispute between the parties. 8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 17.01.2023 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.344/2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2658/2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323/34, 341/34 and 325/34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 17.01.2023 arising out of Argora P.S. Case No.344/2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2658/2022 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-XIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 323/34, 341/34 and 325/34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th of October, 2024 AFR/ Abhiraj 4 Cr. M.P. No.2111 of 2023