1. Aarti Devi aged about 49 years, wife of Krishna Prasad, 2. Krishna Prasad v. 1. The State of Jhark
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.2690 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2690 of 2019 ------ 1. Aarti Devi aged about 49 years, wife of Krishna Prasad, 2. Krishna Prasad aged about 53 years, Son of late Rajkishore Prasad, 3. Biku Kumar @ Viku Kumar @ Vinay Kumar Prasad, aged about 29 years, Son of Krishna Prasad, 4. Vikash Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar @ Vikas Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Krishna Prasad, 5. Vimal Kumar @ Vimal Kumar Prasad, aged about 23 years, Son of Krishna Prasad, All Resident of village Niche Bazar, P.O. & P.S. & District Simdega … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Meena Devi, Wife of Akshay Prasad, Resident of village, Biru Lohra Toli, P.O & P.S. & District Simdega … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Gaurav, Advocate : Mr. Aroop Kumar Dey, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, 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 entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.219 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.06.2018 against the petitioners under Section 323, 354 (B), 420, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Simdega. 1 Cr. M.P. No.2690 of 2019 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that an amicable settlement has been made between the parties and the offence involved in Complaint Case No.219 of 2018 is under Section 323, 354 (B), 420, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Drawing attention of this Court towards the report of District Legal Services Authority, Simdega dated 03.02.2023, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 have mutually agreed unconditionally to resolve/end all pending cases/litigations between them through mediation before the concerned court in accordance with law including the instant Cr.M.P. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the case is at the nascent stage and even the charge has not been framed by the trial court and in view of the compromise, the continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of the Court. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.219 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 323, 354 (B), 420, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Simdega, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no serious objection to the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in view of the compromise between the parties. 4. 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 @ 2 Cr. M.P. No.2690 of 2019 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 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 for any basis 3 Cr. M.P. No.2690 of 2019 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) 5. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in the case are not heinous offences nor they are offences of mental depravity, rather the same has resulted from a marital discord as the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 belong to the same family and the opposite party No.2 is the wife of younger brother of the petitioner No.2 and because of 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 them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim, when the trial is at the nascent stage. 6. After going through the materials available in the record, this Court is satisfied that the parties have 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 proceedings and the continuance of criminal proceedings would tantamount to the abuse of the process of court 4 Cr. M.P. No.2690 of 2019 and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to put an end to Complaint Case No.219 of 2018 of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class Simdega. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.219 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 21.06.2018 against the petitioners under Section 323, 354 (B), 420, 452, 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Simdega, as prayed for by the petitioners, is quashed and set aside. 7. 8.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th of April, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 5