Krishna Kumar Singh, s/o Sri Bajrangi Prasad Singh, Circle Officer,Burmu, Dist.-Ranchi v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo, s/o late Lal Ambika
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1556 of 2006 Krishna Kumar Singh, s/o Sri Bajrangi Prasad Singh, Circle Officer,Burmu, Dist.-Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo, s/o late Lal Ambika Nath Shahdeo, resident of Ratu Road, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi Opp. Parties …. With Cr.M.P. No. 1715 of 2006 Prakash Sahay, s/o late Raj Kishore Sahay, resident of Mohalla Okni, P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Hazaribagh. At present residing at Budmu, P.S.- Budmu, Dist.-Ranchi .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Lal Swatantra Nath Shahdeo, s/o late Lal Chunnulal Ambika Prasad Nath Shahdeo, resident of Ratu Road, P.S.-Sukhdeo Nagar, Dist.-Ranchi …. 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. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. Cr.M.P. No.1556 of 2006 with Cr.M.P. No.1715 of 2006 1 2. Both these criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1051 of 2006 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners of these two criminal miscellaneous petitions for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 466 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.8085 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1556 of 2006 and Interlocutory Application No.8084 of 2024 filed in Cr.M.P. No. 1715 of 2006 which are supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, the parties have settled their dispute and the grievance against the petitioners have already been redressed and thereafter the complainant has decided to withdraw the instant case against the petitioners. It is next jointly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing 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 between the parties is a private dispute. It is further jointly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Cr.M.P. No.1556 of 2006 with Cr.M.P. No.1715 of 2006 2 4. 5. counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as compromise has entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1051 of 2006 be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1051 of 2006, in view of the compromise between the parties. 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 :- justice. to secure the ends of 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) In Gian otherwise 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 Cr.M.P. No.1556 of 2006 with Cr.M.P. No.1715 of 2006 3 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 any basis for quashing criminal involving such offences. But the proceedings criminal and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, like civil, partnership or the offences arising out of transactions or 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 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 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 overwhelmingly cases having the victim, such the Cr.M.P. No.1556 of 2006 with Cr.M.P. No.1715 of 2006 4 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 is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the parties which has amicably been 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 order dated 18.09.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1051 of 2006 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. Accordingly, the order dated 18.09.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1051 of 2006 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. In the result, both these criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.8085 of 2024 and
Decision
interlocutory application no.8084 of 2024 are disposed of. 7. 8. 9. 10. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.1556 of 2006 with Cr.M.P. No.1715 of 2006 5