Lekhraj Kumar Sinha @ Lekh Raj, aged about 29 years, son of Yadav Kumar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Savitri Patro, wife of Lekhraj Kumar Sinha @
Case Details
1 Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 4026 of 2022 Lekhraj Kumar Sinha @ Lekh Raj, aged about 29 years, son of Yadav Kumar Sinha, resident of Bagbera, C.P. Tola, Near Shitla Mandir, P.O. & P.S. –Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District –Purbi Singhbhum. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Savitri Patro, wife of Lekhraj Kumar Sinha @ Lekh Raj, resident of Ganesh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. –Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum …. P R E S E N T Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 ….. : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Aniket Ranjan, 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 prosecution and proceedings arising out of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 138 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/313/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act including the common order of taking cognizance and summoning order dated 10.11.2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No. 3938 of 2023 which is supported 2 Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2022 by separate affidavits of the opposite party no.2 and the Parivikar of the petitioner submit that therein it has been mentioned that with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, the petitioner and the informant-opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute and in this respect, the informant-opposite party no.2 has filed an affidavit in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Jamshedpur on 29.11.2022, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-A to the said interlocutory application no. 3938 of 2023. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and because of love between the parties, as the opposite party no.2 was desirous of solemnizing marriage with the petitioner, this case was instituted but the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and no public policy is involved. It is next submitted that in view of compromise and settlement between the parties, the continuation of criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal prosecution and proceedings arising out of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 138 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance and summoning order dated 10.11.2015 be quashed. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that state has no serious objection for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the summoning order, in view of compromise between the parties. 3 Cr.M.P. No.4026 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 4 Cr.M.P. No.4026 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 not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved rather the same arises out of a matrimonial dispute. The case is at the nascent stage as charge sheet has not yet been submitted and in view of the compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. 5 Cr.M.P. No.4026 of 2022 7. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case continuation of the case will amount to abuse of process of court, in view of the compromise between the parties besides the continuation of the criminal case would also put the accused-petitioner 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. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution and proceedings arising out of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No.18 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 138 of 2015 including the order taking cognizance and summoning order dated 10.11.2015 is quashed and set aside. 9. 10.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. In view of disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3rd May, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)