Dharmbir Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Ramjee Prasad, Resident of Khanpura, Bhagwanganj v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mithlesh Kumar Singh, s/o Sadhu Saran Singh, r/o
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2961 of 2023 Dharmbir Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Ramjee Prasad, Resident of Khanpura, Bhagwanganj, P.O. & P.S.-Bhagwanganj, Dist.- Patna (Bihar) .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mithlesh Kumar Singh, s/o Sadhu Saran Singh, r/o Khanpura, Bhagwanganj, P.O. & P.S.-Bhagwanganj, Dist.- Patna (Bihar) 3. Shivani Yadav, aged about 25 years, w/o Dharmbir Kumar, d/o Mithilesh Kumar Singh, r/o Khanpura, Bhagwanganj, P.O. & P.S.- Bhagwanganj, Dist.- Patna (Bihar) …. 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.3 : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Faiyaj Alam, Advocate : Mr. Priyanshu, 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 arising out of Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2439 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Section 366A, 120B and 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. 4. 2 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no on turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in- spite of repeated calls. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.8497 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavit of the petitioner as well as the alleged victim submits that therein it has been mentioned that the opposite party no.3 and the petitioner were in love with each other for a considerable period of time and they solemnized marriage on 29.06.2017 in a Durga Temple, Danapur at Patna, Bihar and since then, the opposite party no.3 is leading a happy conjugal life with the petitioner. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the opposite party no.3 is not minor rather she is aged 25 years and the petitioner and opposite party no.3 have been blessed two male childdren born on 29.11.2018 and 23.07.2021 respectively. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the date of birth of the opposite party no.3 is 20.08.1998 hence, on the alleged date of occurrence she was aged 18 years, 9 months and 19 days and was a major. It is further submitted that in support of the date of birth of the opposite party no.3, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Aadhar Card of the alleged victim-opposite party no.3 kept at page no.10A of this interlocutory application. It is further jointly 3 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that the dispute between the parties is a personal dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is lastly jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 that in view of solemnization of marriage of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 and the couple blessed with two children, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding will be a futile exercise and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2439 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. 5. 6. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2439 of 2017, in view of the compromise between the parties. 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 4 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 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 in the exercise of the jurisdiction. 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, 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, 5 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 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 the criminal proceeding or continue with 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) 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity. In view of solemnization of marriage of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 and the couple being blessed with two children as also in view of the final settlement between the parties; the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioner. 8. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2439 of 2017 be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Hariharpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. No. 2439 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 6 Cr.M.P. No.2961 of 2023 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.8497 of 2023 is disposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th March, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)