The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 737 of 2023 Mazhar Alam @ Majhar Alam ... Mahadev Prasad Versus ... ... Petitioners The State of Jharkhand Tripti Vijaya Kujur ... … Respondents 1. 2. 1. 2. CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
--------- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State: For the Informant: Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma, Advocate Ms. Archana Kumari Singh, A.C. to G.A.-IV 05/Dated: 21.02.2024 --------- 1. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present criminal writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to set aside the entire criminal prosecution pending as against the petitioners including first information report of Ramgarh SC/ST P.S. Case No.16/21 registered under Sections 341, 353, 420, 499, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (Annexure-1) pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Ramgarh since the same has been filed maliciously by a government servant against the petitioner who happens to be a Press reporter i.e. too without disclosing her caste and detail and without disclosing the fact that the petitioner having any knowledge about her caste and community and even from bare perusal of the first information report which would be quite clear that the same is afterthought and only after complaint and allegation lodged against the complainant, present case has been filed. Pass such order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioners.” And/or 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on the strength of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466. Paragraph No. 29 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) (ii) ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed 2 under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/ delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/ investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/ material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 4. It has further been submitted by referring to Paragraph No. 6 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 that the Court has inherent power to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the offences which are non compoundable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SC 635. 3 6. The facts of the case is that the F.I.R. being Ramgarh S.C./S.T. Case No. 16 of 2021 under Sections 341, 353, 420, 499, 504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal code and Section 31(i)(r) of the S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act has been lodged on 30.11.2021 which reads as under:- “ xxx xxx उपरोঢ िवषय के स(cid:638)(cid:576) म७ कहना है िक मजहर आलम िपता (cid:738)० बदॹ(cid:542)ीन हसन तथा िफरोज आलम िपता (cid:738)० जफर आलम, िनवासी-िचतरपुर (cid:554)ारा सीसीएल अिधঁिहत भूिम को जबरन फज५ कागजात देकर अपने नाम पर ঋिवि(cid:700) कराने के िलए दबाव िदया गया, िफरोज आलम (cid:554)ारा पআकाौरता का भय िदखाया व् धमकी िदया, एवं महादेव ঋसाद िपता (cid:738)० िআभुवन साव िनवासी – सुकjhग-ढा िचतरपुर (cid:554)ारा जबरन िववािदत भूिम की vkWनलाइन ঋिवि(cid:700) हेतु धमकाया गया । xxx िफरोज आलम तथा महादेव ঋसाद के (cid:554)ारा बार-बार षंআ रच कर मुझ पर (cid:700)ाचार का झूठा आरोप लगाया तथा तवादले की धमकी दी। िदनांक 09-11-21 को महादेव ঋसाद (cid:554)ारा अंचल क म७ घुस कर घंटों खड़े रह कर सरकारी कायॵ म७ बाधा डाला, खड़े होकर मेरी ऑिडयो ौरकॉिडंग की। िदनांक 17-11-2021 को पंचायत भवन भुचु ंगडीह म७ आयोिजत आपके अिधकार आपके सरकार आपके (cid:554)ार काय१ॿम म७ िफरोज आलम एवं महादेव ঋसाद उप्(cid:830)थत थे तथा काय१ॿम समा(cid:593) होने के प(cid:686)ात लौटने के ॿम म७ भुचु ंगडीह रजर(cid:596)ा माग१ पर शाम लगभग 06:00 बजे मेरी सरकारी गाड़ी रोककर गाली गykssज िकया, आिदवासी हो िनUu जाित से हो इसिलए सीओ बन भी गयी नहीं तो तुम चपरासी के लायक भी नहीं हो हमको तो तु(cid:649)ारी योता पर भी शक है, अभी तक तु(cid:649)ारा ekथा नहीं घुमा है, जाितसूचक श(cid:616)ों का इ(cid:721)ेमाल िकया और दोनों िमल कर बोला िक कल तक तुम मेरा काम कर देना नहीं तो अंजाम बॽत हीं बुरा होगा िजसकी तुम क(cid:665)ना भी नहीं कर सकती हो । उঢ ौरकॉिडंग की छे ड़-छाड़ कर अपलोड िकया तथा फज५ ऑिडयो-िविडयो बनाया और (cid:586)ूज 11 म७ अपलोड िकया िजससे मेरी छिव धूिमल ॽई। इनके इन सभी कायॵ से eSa भय तथा मानिसक दबाब म७ ॾँ, तथा मेरी जान को भी खतरा है। अतः आपसे नএ िनवेदन है की सुसंगत धाराओं के तहत इन लोंगो के ्खलाफ के स दज१ िकया जाय ं तथा भिव(cid:712) म७ मुझे या esरे पौरवार के साथ िकसी भी ঋकार तािक म॰ भयमुঢ होकर अंचल म७ काय१ कर सकू की अिঋय घटना होती है तो इसके िज(cid:643)ेवार eजहर आलम, िफरोज आलम तथा महादेव ঋसाद हीं होंगे ।“ 7. 8. It is submitted that the matter is still under investigation. In the meantime, a compromise has been arrived between the parties and that has been brought on record by filing Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 208 of 2024. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 8 of the said I.A. are quoted hereinbelow: “4. 5. 6. 7. 8. That it is stated and submitted that however dispute has been resolved between the parties outside the court as they know one another since long. That it is stated that the parties hereto have sensibly thought over the prospects including all the reliable impacts and have arrived on the conclusion that it would be better if the dispute between the parties gets settled. It is stated and submitted that since the dispute is purely a private dispute and no public policy is involved, it is a fit case where this Hon’ble Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing the criminal prosecution in terms of this compromise petition. That it is stated that no public policy is involved in the present case, and hence, permission may be granted to compound the offence in interest of justice. That it is stated and submitted that the compromise has been entered into by the parties amicably without any coercion or threat, since all are educated person and do not intend to indulge themselves in litigation.” 9. Now, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are journalists and they were only making reporting and the informant/victim got annoyed and that was the reason for lodging the F.I.R.. Subsequently, both the parties have realized and the matter has been settled. Since the alleged crime is not a heinous crime, rather most of the Sections are compoundable except Section 353 of the IPC and Section 31(i)(r) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on the facts and circumstances of the case because the ingredient of the same has not been fulfilled. So far as the S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, the informant is a Government 4 official and she is in a position of power and these petitioners are not an authority, rather they are journalists who were only doing their job. 10. It has been further submitted that save and except verbal exchange there is no other allegation against these petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the informant has supported the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12.
Decision
In view of the above discussion and declaration of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also considering the fact that the matter has already been settled between the parties, this criminal writ petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Ramgarh S.C./S.T. Case No. 16 of 2021 is hereby, quashed. 13. In view of the final disposal of the criminal writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application also stands disposed of. VK (Rajesh Kumar, J.)