1. Bhola Nath Giri, aged about 48 years, 2. Dipankar Giri, aged about 42 v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Saileshwar Giri, Son of Late Paren Giri, Resident
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2468 of 2023 ------ 1. Bhola Nath Giri, aged about 48 years, 2. Dipankar Giri, aged about 42 years, Both Sons of Kali Pada Giri, Resident of Asanboni, P.O. & P.S.- Jadugora, Dist.- East Singhbhum … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Saileshwar Giri, Son of Late Paren Giri, Resident of Asanboni, P.O. & P.S.- Jadugora, Dist.- East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the complaint case including all subsequent proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.1269 of 2011, be quashed and set aside. 2 Cr. M.P. No.2468 of 2023 4. Learned Addl.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 dated 25.04.2011 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the complaint case including all subsequent proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.1269 of 2011. 5. 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 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 3 Cr. M.P. No.2468 of 2023 for any basis 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 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 is there any serious offence of mental depravity 4 Cr. M.P. No.2468 of 2023 involved in this case rather the same relates to petty private dispute between the parties. 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order dated 25.04.2011 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also the complaint case including all subsequent proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.1269 of 2011, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the order dated 25.04.2011 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also the complaint case including all subsequent proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.1269 of 2011, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 10.
Arguments
: Mr. Manoj Kr. Dash, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Prakash Kumar, 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 dated 25.04.2011 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the complaint case including all subsequent proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.1269 of 2011 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court towards Interlocutory 1 Cr. M.P. No.2468 of 2023 Application No.913 of 2024 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and the son as well as power-of-attorney holder of the complainant- opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the genesis of occurrence is a land dispute and during the pendency of the case, the parties have resolved the dispute and grievance amicably; with the intervention of well-wishers and the common friends outside the court and they have also entered into an agreement dated 09.08.2023, the copy of which has been annexed at Annexure-1 of this interlocutory application. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that neither charge-sheet has been submitted nor any witness has been examined and the trial is yet to begin. It is then submitted that in view of the compromise, the complainant- opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the complaint case against the petitioners and the complainant- opposite party No.2 has no grievance against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and predominantly having a civil flavour and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 25.04.2011 by which the
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.913 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 09th of September, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 5 Cr. M.P. No.2468 of 2023