1. Abhishek Kumar, son of Shri Binod Kumar, aged about 35 years. 2. Binod v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kumari Deepa, wife of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2169 of 2021 1. Abhishek Kumar, son of Shri Binod Kumar, aged about 35 years. 2. Binod Kumar, son of late Shri Bideshi Ram, aged about 63 years. 3. Sumitra Devi, wife of Shri Binod Kumar, aged about 56 years. All are resident of Manaitand, Pathak Colony, Chhath Talab Road, P.O. –Dhanbad, P.S. –Dhansar (Dhanbad), District –Dhanbad, State –Jharkhand. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kumari Deepa, wife of Shri Abhishek Kumar, aged about 31 years, daughter of Shri Moti Lal Das, resident of Village –Manaitand, Pathak Colony, Chhath Talab Road, P.O. –Dhanbad, P.S. –Dhansar (Dhanbad), District –Dhanbad, State –Jharkhand. At present residing at Mohalla –Meena Bazar, Near Indira Gandhi Maidan, P.O., P.S. and Sub-Division –Madhupur, District -Deoghar. …. 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 the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners hands over a demand draft of Rs.17,50,000/- to the opposite party no.2 who is present in the Court today. The same is received by the opposite party no.2. Keep the acknowledgement of the opposite party no.2 of receipt of the said demand draft in the record. 1 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021 3. 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 taking cognizance dated 15.03.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in Madhupur P.S. Case No. 152 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2018. 4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 are present in the Court today and consequent upon mediation at the Mediation Centre of JHALSA at Ranchi, the parties have settled their dispute. Hence, the informant-opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case in which charge sheet has been submitted for commission of the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is next submitted that because of the compromise, as the informant-opposite party no.2 is not ready and willing to prosecute the case, the chances of the conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and the genesis of the occurrence is a marital discord. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding 2 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.03.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in Madhupur P.S. Case No. 152 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2018 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.03.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in Madhupur P.S. Case No. 152 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2018, in view of the compromise between the parties. 6. 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 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 inherent 3 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021 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 4 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021 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) 7. 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 involved in this case. The institution of the criminal case is a result of a marital discord between the parties; because of some misunderstanding, 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 petitioners. 8. 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 taking cognizance dated 15.03.2021, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in Madhupur P.S. Case No. 152 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 15.03.2021, passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhupur in Madhupur P.S. Case 5 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021 No. 152 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 439 of 2018 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st June, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2169 of 2021