1. Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o Shyam Sundar v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jakir Hussain Ansari, S/O Late Umar Ali, R/o
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3887 of 2023 ------ 1. Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Pradeep Singh, aged about 49 years, S/o Shyam Sundar Singh, R/o At- Sudna, PO & PS- Daltonganj, District- Palamau, State- Jharkhand 2. Kunal Datta Pandey @ Kunal Dutt Pandey, aged about 47 years, S/o Shali Gram Pandey, R/o Village & PO- Basna, PS- Bishrampur, District- Palamau, Jharkhand … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Jakir Hussain Ansari, S/O Late Umar Ali, R/o At- Chhattarpur, PO & PS & District- Garhwa, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P. : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- I.A. No.9311 of 2024 2. 3. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to correct para-1, para-23 and sub para- 23, Index and prayer portion of the instant Cr.M.P. in which the date of the cognizance order has wrongly been mentioned because of printing error. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. It is, therefore, submitted that the proposed amendment as prayed for in para-4 in this interlocutory application be allowed. 1 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023 4. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the prayer to carry out the proposed amendment as prayed for in para-4 of this interlocutory application, is allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners files a consolidated Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 6. 7. Keep the same in the record.
Decision
Accordingly, this instant interlocutory application is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.3887 of 2023 1. 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 cognizance orders dated 30.01.2019 and 16.07.2019 by which cognizance has been taken and also to quash the orders dated 08.05.2019 and 02.09.2019 by which the charge under Sections 406, 420, 120B, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been framed against the petitioners in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.563 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No.11309 of 2023, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners and the opposite party No.2- informant, and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioners and the opposite party No.2-informant have amicably settled all their issues outside the court with the intervention of the well-wishers, friends and close relatives. Hence, the 2 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023 opposite party No.2- informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant further submit that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute arising out of agreement-cum-consent letter prepared between the parties and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the full and final settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the cognizance orders dated 30.01.2019 and 16.07.2019 as well as the orders dated 08.05.2019 and 02.09.2019; passed in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.563 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the cognizance orders dated 30.01.2019 and 16.07.2019 as well as the orders dated 08.05.2019 and 02.09.2019; passed in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.563 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa. 4. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on 3 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023 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 in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) “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 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 for any basis 4 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023 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 quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)” 5. 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 in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties. 6. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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. 7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the cognizance orders dated 30.01.2019 and 16.07.2019 as well as the orders dated 08.05.2019 and 02.09.2019; passed in connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.563 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, be quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the cognizance orders dated 30.01.2019 and 16.07.2019 as well as the orders dated 08.05.2019 and 02.09.2019; passed in connection with 5 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023 Garhwa P.S. Case No.116 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.563 of 2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, is quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 10. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.11309 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of November, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 6 Cr. M.P. No.3887 of 2023