Baljit Singh, aged about 56 years, Son of Late Harbhajan Singh, Resident of House v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rakesh Sharma, Son of Late Baleshwar Sharma, Resident
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2562 of 2023 Baljit Singh, aged about 56 years, Son of Late Harbhajan Singh, Resident of House No. 257, Gurudwara Road, Mango, P.O.& P.S. – Mango, District –East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur) .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rakesh Sharma, Son of Late Baleshwar Sharma, Resident of Village –Siwankala, P.S. –Sikandarpur, District –Balia (Uttar Pradesh). …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. 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 including the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2023 and the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, East Singhbhum in C/1 Case No. 2852 of 2011. 3. 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.2504 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavit of the Pairvikar of petitioner and the informant-opposite party no.2 that therein it has been mentioned 2 Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2023 that the parties have amicably settled the dispute without any pressure, coercion and threat and the same has been done willfully. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and as compromise has entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2023 and the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, East Singhbhum in C/1 Case No. 2852 of 2011 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2023 and the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, East Singhbhum in C/1 Case No. 2852 of 2011, in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. 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 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 3 Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2023 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 jurisdiction. The in the exercise of the considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) inherent “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, 4 Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2023 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 (Emphasis quash the criminal proceeding.” 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 involved in this case. The institution of the criminal cases is a result of some misunderstanding between the parties, which has amicably been settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2023 and the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the 5 Cr.M.P. No.2562 of 2023 learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, East Singhbhum in C/1 Case No. 2852 of 2011 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 24.06.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2023 and the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, East Singhbhum in C/1 Case No. 2852 of 2011 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 9. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.2504 of 2024 is disposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th March, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)