Jharkhand High Court
Iqbal Khan @ Ekbal Khan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 August, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2142 of 2023
1. Iqbal Khan @ Ekbal Khan, son of Fahim Khan, aged about 30 years,
2. Rizwana Parween @ Razwana Parveen, wife of Fahim Khan, aged
about 55 years,
3. Zafar Khan @ Jafar Khan @ Sahebzade, son of Fahim Khan, aged
about 27 years,
4. Saddam Khan @ Sajjan, son of Fahim Khan, aged about 26 years,
5. Sher Khan, son of Safique Khan, Aged about 40 years,
6. Adilip Farooque @ Md. Aadlip, son of Sayed Farukh Ahmed, aged
about 40 years,
7. Sayed Imran @ Saiyad Imran @ Md. Ghar, son of Sayed Touhid,
aged about 35 years,
8. Shahin Khan, son of Abdul Aziz, aged about 49 years,
9. Jannat Khanam, daughter of Fahim Khan, aged about 21 years,
10. Mehar Fatima @ Simran, daughter of Fahim Khan, aged about 24
years,
All resident of Kamar Makdumi Road, near New Masjid,
Waseypur, P.O. -Dhanbad, P.S. -Bankmore, District -Dhanbad.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Waheeda Khan, wife of Iqbal Khan, resident of Kamar-Makdumi Road,
near Masjid, Wasseypur, P.O. -Dhanbad, P.S. -Bankmore, District -
Dhanbad.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandip Kr. Burnwal, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.2 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023
2. 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 in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1646 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the annexure -3 at page nos. 18-19 of the brief which is the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Dhanbad, submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have compromised the case and settled their dispute with the intervention of friends and well-wishers. It is next submitted that because of matrimonial dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, this case was instituted out of rage and because of the compromise; the informant does not want to proceed with the case. It is then submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of court and as compromise has effected to between the parties, the chances of 3 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023 conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case.
Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1646 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad be quashed.
4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1646 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code in view of the compromise between the parties.
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 4 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023 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 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 5 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023 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. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. In view of the compromise between the parties and the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 corresponding 6 Cr.M.P. No.2142 of 2023 to G.R. Case No. 1646 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bankmore P.S. Case No. 90 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1646 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2018, passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/341/504/34 of Indian Penal Code now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad is quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-