1. Surendra Kaur @ Savinder Kaur aged about 52 years wife of Bakshi Singh v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shital Kaur wife of Kulvinder Singh resident of
Case Details
Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3152 of 2023 ------ 1. Surendra Kaur @ Savinder Kaur aged about 52 years wife of Bakshi Singh. 2. Bakhshi Singh @ Bakshish Singh aged about 58 years son of Sadhu Singh. Both resident of House No.29, Ramdeo Bagan, Behind Church, P.O. + P.S.- Golmuri, District- East Singhbhum (Jamshedpur). … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shital Kaur wife of Kulvinder Singh resident of House No.H/6, Ramdev Bagan, P.O. + P.S.- Golmuri, District- East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 ------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Roy, Advocate Mr. Kumar Shashwat, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1522 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. 1 Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners respectively being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the daughter of the informant namely Amardeep Kaur, attacked the husband of the informant with sword, hockey stick, rod, blade cutter causing injuries on his belly, face and chest. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.9386 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that on the intervention of the family, friends and common well- wishers, the parties have amicably settled the dispute outside the court and the petitioners and the informant/opposite party No.2 are close relatives and because of some misunderstanding, the case was instituted. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no material in the record to constitute the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the co- accused of the petitioners who is their son- Karan Singh has faced the trial and has been acquitted by judgment dated 14.01.2020 in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur, the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-2 to this Cr.M.P. Drawing attention of this Court towards the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged victim of the case namely Kulbinder Singh as P.W.-1 in that case, has categorically stated that there was a minor altercation in which he sustained some injuries and the same statement was also made by the P.W.-2 namely Shital Kaur who is the informant of the case; in her deposition in the said case and the co-accused has been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, 2 Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak, hence, the continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1522 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1522 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has summed up and laid down the principles by which High Court will be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings paragraph-29 of which read as under:- “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 3 Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 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) ends of justice, or (ii) 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 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 4 Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as the informant/victim is not supporting the case of the prosecution in view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners will be bleak and remote. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is evident from the judgment of S.T. No.152 of 2018 that there was a minor altercation between the parties and the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on the basis of the materials in the record and the same has been added to the F.I.R. for the sake of it. 5 Cr. M.P. No.3152 of 2023 9. Hence, as already indicated above, since the chance of the conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak; the continuation of the criminal proceeding, in the considered opinion of this Court will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1522 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Golmuri P.S. Case No.83 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1522 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, is quashed and set aside. 11. 12.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., Interlocutory Application No.9386 of 2023 stands disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th of October, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 6