Jitendra Kumar, S/o Ritlal Mandal, aged about 36 years, R/o Chunglo Birnadabar Tola, P.O v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bulbul Devi W/o Jitendra Kumar Mandal, D/o Basudeo
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2211 of 2020 with CrMP. No. 1050 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2211 of 2020 Jitendra Kumar, S/o Ritlal Mandal, aged about 36 years, R/o Chunglo Birnadabar Tola, P.O. – Chunglo, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bulbul Devi W/o Jitendra Kumar Mandal, D/o Basudeo Mandal, R/o Vill.- Birnadabar, P.O.– Chunglo, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih Also resident of Bindhya Colony, Qtr. No. C-22, P.S.- Narojabad, Dist.- Umeria (Madhya Pradesh) At present – Langta Baba Project Girl’s High School Mirjaganj, P.O.- Mirjaganj, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih ….. Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 1050 of 2020 Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kumar Mandal, s/o Ritlal Mandal, aged about 38 years, R/o Chunglo Birnadabar Tola, P.O. – Chunglo, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih Versus ...... Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Bulbul Devi W/o Jitendra Kumar Mandal, D/o Basudeo Mandal, R/o Vill.- Birnadabar, P.O.– Chunglo, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih Also resident of Bindhya Colony, Qtr. No. C-22, P.S.- Narojabad, Dist.- Umeria (Madhya Pradesh) At present – Langta Baba Project Girl’s High School Mirjaganj, P.O.- Mirjaganj, P.S.- Jamua, Dist. – Giridih ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Adv. : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.PP Mr. Aman Kumar, AC to GP 1 : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani , Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition no. 2211 of 2020 has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2211 of 2020 with CrMP. No. 1050 of 2020 connection with the Jamua P.S. case no. 149 of 2020 registered under Section 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of D.P.Act on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly draws attention of the court to the I.A. No. 5657 of 2023, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, submits that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, good sense has prevailed between the parties and the parties have settled their dispute at JHALSA by way of an agreement dated 14.06.2023 and the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have agreed that they shall observe good relationship between each other, after disposal of cases between them. It is further submitted that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by the decree of divorce hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Jamua P.S. case no. 149 of 2020 will amount to abuse of the process of the court and no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into between the parties, hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the Jamua P.S. case no. 149 of 2020 be quashed. 4. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection quash the entire criminal proceeding as prayed for by the petitioner in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and 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 :- 3 Cr.M.P. No. 2211 of 2020 with CrMP. No. 1050 of 2020 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 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 not heinous offences nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity rather the same has resulted from a dispute regarding 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2211 of 2020 with CrMP. No. 1050 of 2020 payment of money between the petitioners and opposite party no.2. 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. 7. In view of the submissions made at the Bar jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Jamua P.S. case no. 149 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of D.P.Act pending in the court of JMFC, Giridih be put to an end. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of in connection with the Jamua P.S. case no. 149 of 2020 pending in the court of JMFC, Giridih is quashed and set aside.
Decision
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 10. In view of the order passed in CrMP No. 2211 of 2020, the Cr.M.P. No. 1050 of 2022 becomes infructuous and the said Interlocutory application is dismissed as infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 12th July, 2023 Smita /AFR (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)