1. Sachin Kumar, S/o Nand Kishore Sah, aged about 36 years 2. Vivek Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Chandra Sah, R/o –Sai
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.3223 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3223 of 2019 1. Sachin Kumar, S/o Nand Kishore Sah, aged about 36 years 2. Vivek Kumar @ Vickey, S/o Nand Kishore Sah, aged about 33 years Both R/o Sai Vihar Colony, Madhukam, Road No.2, P.O. –Hehal, P.S. –Sukhdeonagar, District –Ranchi. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sunil Kumar, S/o Ram Chandra Sah, R/o –Sai Vihar Colony, Madhukam, Road No.2, P.O. –Hehal, P.S. –Sukhdeonagar, District – Ranchi. …. 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. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Sah, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Santosh 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 for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 424 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419/420/406/468/506 of Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to 2 Cr.M.P. No.3223 of 2019 the Interlocutory Application No. 10835 of 2022 which is supported by separate affidavits of both the petitioners and the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of this criminal miscellaneous petition, good sense prevailed between the parties and the petitioner as well as the informant have joined hands to settle their monetary dispute which is a private dispute between the parties. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a dispute regarding payment of money 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 law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 424 of 2019 be quashed. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 424 of 2019 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 3 Cr.M.P. No.3223 of 2019 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.3223 of 2019 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 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 rather the same are of overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour. In view of compromise between the parties, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 424 of 2019 be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 424 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. 5 Cr.M.P. No.3223 of 2019 9. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.10835 of 2022 is disposed of being infructuous. 11. In view of disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interlocutory application no. 2043 of 2020 is also disposed of being infructuous. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 17th July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)