Jharkhand High Court
M /S. Nirman Traders vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3238 of 2022
------
1. M /s. Nirman Traders, having its office at Saraidhela, PO & PS- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its proprietor Shri Amit Kumar Sultania, aged about 38 years, S/o. Shri Santosh Kumar Sultania, Proprietor of M /s. Nirmaan Traders, having its office at Saraidhela, PO & PS- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
2. Amit Kumar Sultania, aged about 38 years, S/o. Shri Santosh Kumar Sultania, Proprietor of M /s. Nirmaan Traders, having its office at Saraidhela, PO & PS- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
3. Rakesh Singh Chaudhary @ Rakesh Singh Choudhary, aged about 37 years, S/o. Subhash Singh Chaudhary, R/o. Durga Mandir Road, Hirapur, PO, PS & District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Sarita Sinha, W/o. Dr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Principal, Delhi Public School, Karmik Nagar, PO- ISM, PS & District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
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 order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief 1 Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2022 Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and for quashing the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 384, 385, 386, 387, 389, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
3. 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.3596 of 2023 and submit that the said Interlocutory Application is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner No.2 and the opposite party No.2 and it is jointly signed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 as well as the opposite party No.2 and the parties have compromised the dispute outside the court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute regarding construction of a building by using sub-standard material but since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, hence, the opposite party No.2 no longer wishes to proceed any further with the instant case, hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as 2 Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2022 prayed for by the petitioner in view of the compromise and complete settlement between the parties.
5. 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 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.3 Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2022
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 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)"
6. Now coming to the facts of this case, this Court finds that no heinous offences nor the serious offences of mental depravity is involved in this case and the dispute between the parties is overwhelmingly and predominantly civil in nature. The investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. In view of the complete settlement between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the court as the chances of conviction is remote and bleak in view of the compromise. Thus it will be in the interest of justice to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order 4 Cr. M.P. No.3238 of 2022 dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and for quashing the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022.
7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No.9806 of 2022 whereby and where under complaint has been referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police and the F.I.R. of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.167 of 2022, is quashed and set aside.
8. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of April, 2023 AFR/ Animesh 5