Kashi Nath Modi v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

: Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate : Mrs. Ruby Pandey, A.P.P. : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, Advocate 18/25.02.2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

#2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this petition is for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2011 in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 138 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 406, 500, 506 IPC and U/s 3(i) (X) of SC/ST, Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. It has been pointed out that the complaint case arose in the wake of taking a tanker of water for some occasion in the house by the complainant to the office of Nagar Panchayat and an application was given for taking the water tanker to be used in the social occasion in his house and thereafter it was alleged by the complainant that the Executive Officer demanded a sum of Rs. 500 and accordingly, the complainant paid the same but the receipt of Rs. 350 was given. Then the complainant demanded for return of the rest of the amount of Rs. 150, but it was not returned by the petitioner and thereafter it was alleged by the complainant that this petitioner has used abusive languages by calling him ‘Chamar’ and insulted him.

#3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below without applying proper judicial mind took cognizance, inter alia, of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420,

#2. 500, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is not made out at all because the main allegation was in respect of demand of excess money as per the complainant himself.

#4. Further learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of this Cr.M.P. and the case in the learned court below, a good sense prevailed between both the parties and the matter has been resolved amicably between them. It further submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is available on record from which it appears that due to intervention of the well-wisher and the friends of the complainant and the petitioner, the matter has been resolved and a joint compromise petition was also filed before the learned court below on 08.10.2021 but the learned court below did not pass any order regarding withdrawal of the complaint by opposite party no. 2, despite there being a specific provision under the Cr.P.C. of withdrawal of the case by the complainant in a complaint case. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner is a government employee working on the post of Executive Engineer under the Government of Jharkhand and now the entire dispute has been resolved for once and all.

#5. On the other hand, Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, fairly submitted that as a matter of fact, due to intervention of the well- wisher and friend of the complainant and the petitioner, the dispute has been resolved once for all and a joint compromise petition has been filed before the learned court below on 08.10.2021 and now the complainant-opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue this case and an affidavit has also been filed by opposite party no. 2,

#3. which is available along with the counter affidavit filed on his behalf.

#6. Both the learned counsel have jointly submitted that it is very simple nature of dispute, which arose when the complainant had gone to the office of Nagar Panchayat for taking tanker of water and regarding the payment of money, dispute arose and there was no such evidence about the accusation of teasing under the pretext of caste which took place and now it is a personal nature of dispute basically between both the parties which they have now amicably compromised.

#7. In this view of matter both the parties have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011) para 16 of which reads as under: “On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

#8. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. Mrs. Ruby Pandey, appearing on behalf of the State, did not controvert the compromise which has taken place between both the parties (Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2) and submitted that let an appropriate order be passed on the basis of the settlement and agreement arrived at between the parties.

#9. Having into consideration the aforesaid submission, it is found that since the matter has been resolved amicably between both the parties and the dispute between the parties is of a nature of personal dispute and confined to them only as it is not threatening the society at large and it does not attract of any heinousness or ruthlessness in the alleged offence and therefore it is just and fair in response to the expectation of both the parties to get the matter compounded and allow offences to be compounded between the parties at this stage of this case. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance dated 20.06.2011 is set aside and subsequently all the criminal proceedings of this complaint case being P.C.R. Case No. 138 of 2011 is also set aside and this Cr.M.P. No.1127 of 2011 is allowed with respect to this petitioner. J.Minj/ (Navneet Kumar, J.)