1. Md. Ali Hussain, aged about 62 years, son of Sultan Ahmad 2. Saud v. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2397 of 2023 1. Md. Ali Hussain, aged about 62 years, son of Sultan Ahmad 2. Saud Ansari @ Saud Ahmad, aged about 58 years, son of Sultan Ahmad 3. Sakir Ansari @ Sakir Ahmad, aged about 47 years, son of Sultan Ahmad 4. Md. Zulfan Ansari, aged about 35 years, son of Ali Hussain Ahmad all resident of Sahu Chowk, Pundag, P.O. & P.S.-Pundag, Dist.- Ranchi The State of Jharkhand .... Petitioners Versus …. 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. Anuj Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. P.P. : Ms. Priti, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. I.A. No.4888 of 2024 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to permit the petitioners to make additional prayer in the main petition for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022. It is next submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the case, there has been a settlement between the parties hence, there is no justification for Cr.M.P. No.2397 of 2023 1 continuing with the criminal proceeding therefore, the same necessitated the prayer for making the said additional prayer. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer for making additional prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022 is allowed.
Decision
This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. 3. 4. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No. 2397 of 2023 1. 2. 3. 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 entire criminal proceeding and some other orders in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022. 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.837 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavit of the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2-informant submits that therein it has been mentioned that the genesis of the occurrence is land dispute between the parties and a compromise has been effected to between the parties. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel 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 next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Cr.M.P. No.2397 of 2023 2 4. 5. opposite party no.2 that as compromise has 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 entire criminal proceeding and some other orders in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and some other orders in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022, 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) otherwise 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) Cr.M.P. No.2397 of 2023 3 “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 and criminal 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 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 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 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 overwhelmingly cases having the victim, such the Cr.M.P. No.2397 of 2023 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 there is 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 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 entire criminal proceeding and some other orders in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding and some other orders in connection with Jagarnath (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 192 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.837 of 2024 is disposed of. 7. 8. 9. 10. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th August, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.2397 of 2023 5