1. Dillo Chand Hazam @ Dillo Chandra Hazam, aged about 57 years, S/o –Late v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Punam Devi, W/o –Digamber Kumar, R/o –Sector -8/c
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3121 of 2019 1. Dillo Chand Hazam @ Dillo Chandra Hazam, aged about 57 years, S/o –Late Ruplal Hazam, R/o –Village –Bermo More, Jamtara, P.O. +P.S. –Dumri, District -Giridih. 2. Raju Thakur, aged about 48 years, S/o –Chaman Thakur, R/o – Village –Nagri, P.O.+P.S. –Nimiaghat, District -Giridih .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Punam Devi, W/o –Digamber Kumar, R/o –Sector -8/c, Roy Chowk, P.O. –Sector 09, Thana –Harla, District –Bokaro, Jharkhand …. 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. Arwind Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Fahad Allam, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, 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 order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistratre -1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with 2 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro. 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.11328 of 2022 which is supported by separate affidavit of the Pairvikar of both the petitioners and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.2 is the sister-in-law of the daughter of the petitioner no.1 and the daughter of the petitioner no.1 was having matrimonial dispute with her husband and the said matrimonial dispute has been settled and the daughter of the petitioner no.1 is living with her husband and the opposite party no.2 in her matrimonial house. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the opposite party no.2 do not want to proceed with the case and the opposite party no.2 has compromised the case outside the court upon the consultation and advice of their well- wishers and common relatives. 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018 3 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018, 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 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 :- 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 4 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 “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 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 5 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 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 supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 6. 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 with this case. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistratre -1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 851 of 2018, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro is quashed and set aside. 9.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 6 Cr.M.P. No.3121 of 2019 10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.11328 of 2022 is disposed of; being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 7th August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)