The High Court
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3578 of 2022 1. Kishore Kunal Singh @ Kishor Kunal Singh aged about 34 years, s/o Kumar Basant Raj Singh, R/o- VIP Colony, Bhelatand, Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S.-Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2. Mini Singh @ Mini Kumari, aged about 50 years, w/o Kumar Basant Raj Singh, R/o- VIP Colony, Bhelatand, Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S.- Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3. Kumar Basant Raj Singh, aged about 57 years, s/o late Lal Bahadur Singh, R/o- VIP Colony, Bhelatand, Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S.-Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 4. Santosh Singh @ Santosh Kumar, aged about 47 years, s/o Maheshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Bhuli D-Block, Near Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Bhuli Nagar, Tiadaha, P.O. & P.S.- Bhuli, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 5. Neelam Kumari @ Nilam Kumar @ Nilam Singh, aged about 52 years, d/o Maheshwar Prasad Singh, R/o E-Block, Sector-3 Q. No.534, Near Durga Mandir, P.O. & P.S.- Bhuli, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand 6. Ravi Kumar @ Dara, aged about 32 years, s/o Ahajad Mahato, R/o- VIP Colony, Bhelatand, Dhaiya, P.O. & P.S.-Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad, Jharkhand .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Subhangi @ Shubhangi Singh w/o Kunal Kishore Singh and D/o- Binod Kumar Singh, r/o Basant Vihar Colony, East Dighdikala, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Hajipur Sadar, Dist. Vaishali, Bihar At present R/o Nakashi, Plot No. 5511, Road No. 55, Sachin, GIDC, Surat, P.O. & P.S.- Sachin, G.I.D.C., Dist. Surat, Gujarat …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY 2 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 ….. : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Ashok 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 including the charge sheet and also the order dated 27.08.2021 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 2175 of 2021, now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 18.05.2023, which is sworn by the pairvikar of the petitioners, submits that the petition for compromise was filed by the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 jointly in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 2175 of 2021 and therein, it has been mentioned that both the parties have compromised the case and settled their dispute outside the court with intervention of family, friends and well-wishers and the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2 3 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 have agreed and decided to mutually separate and file divorce application on the ground of mutual consent under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Dhanbad. It is then submitted jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a personal dispute and no public policy is involved in the offence and the offences are not serious offences any mental depravity. It is further submitted jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that unless the criminal proceeding is quashed and set aside, the petitioners will be put to unnecessary hardship. It is further submitted jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 in view of the compromise is not desirous in prosecuting the case and chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that for the ends of justice the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet and also the order dated 27.08.2021 in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 2175 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet and also the order dated 27.08.2021 in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 2175 of 2021 in view of the compromise between the parties. 4 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 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 “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 5 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 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 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 quash (Emphasis supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor any serious offences of mental depravity is alleged to have taken place rather the alleged offence has occurred because of disharmony and matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2. 6 Cr.M.P. No.3578 of 2022 7. Because of the compromise between the offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would certainly put the accused- petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 charge sheet and also the order dated 27.08.2021 in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 2175 of 2021 be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the charge sheet and also the order dated 27.08.2021 in connection with Barwadda P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. No. 2175 of 2021 is quashed and set aside. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)