Jharkhand High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 August, 2023
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2023
1.Md. Sarwar Khan, son of Md. Majid, aged about-44 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad.
2. Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, son of Nisar Ahmad, aged about 38 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad
3. Avinash Marandi, son of Mahadeo Marandi, aged about 33 years, Resident of Kharkabad, Chitahibad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad
4. Akshay Kumar Choubey, son of Rudra-Narayan Choubey, Aged about 26 years, Resident of Sahu Bahiyar, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dist. -Dhanbad
5. Jagarnath Kumbhakar @ Jagannath Kumar, son of Anath Kumbhkar, aged about 60 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad
6. Jallu Ansari, son of Sobratri Ansari, aged about 36 years Kharkabad, P.O & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. -Dhanbad.
7. Kalimuddin Ansari, son of Saiyad Ansari, aged about 36 years, Resident of Murgabani, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad
8. Md. Salim Ansari, son of Saiyad Ansari, aged about 39 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. - Dhanbad.
9. Md. Farid Shekh @Fazid Shekh, son of Ijhar Shekh, aged about 35 years, Resident of Kali Mandir Ke Pas, Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. -Dhanbad.
10. Manoranjan Gorai, son of Anand Gorai, aged about 42 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.- Dhanbad.
11. Tapan Kumar Das, son of Gokul Das, aged about 37 years, Resident of Sarkardih, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.-Dhanbad.
12. Manes Bauri, son of Arun Bauri, aged about 32 years, Resident of Kharkabad, Parasi, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
13. Md. Tinku, son of Md. Safik, aged about 37 years, resident of Kali Mandir Ke Pas, Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
14. Md. Asgar, son of Md. Rafik, aged about 34 years, Resident of Kali Mandir Ke Pas, Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
15. Md. Arshed Shekh @ Md. Arshad, son of Late Madan Shekh, aged about 40 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. -Dhanbad.
16. Bikki Khan @ Vicky Khan @ Firdosh Khan, son of Md. Firoj Khan, aged about 26 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
17. Md. Safik Shekh @ Md. Safique Sekh, son of Md. Rafik Shekh, aged about 39 years, Resident of Kali Mandir Ke Pas, Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad 2 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2023
18. Bholanath Bauri, son of Kinkar Bauri, aged about 33 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. - Dhanbad.
19. Md. Saddam Husain, son of Md. Jamshed, aged about 34 years, Resident of Masjid Ke Samne, Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. -Dhanbad.
20. Pintu Shekh @ Jawed Shekh @Pintu, son of Late Madan Shekh, aged about 38 years, Resident of Kharkabad, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
21. Md. Ajharuddin Ansari, son of Md. Kyum Ansari, aged about 27 years, Resident of Murgabani, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist. Dhanbad.
22. Rajendra Prasad Rajak @ Rajendra Rajak, son of Late Durga Rajak, aged about 35 years, Resident of Deoli, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, Dist.-Dhanbad ........Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ajay Kumar Sriwastava @Ajay Kumar Srivastava, son of Bageshwar Prasad Sriwastava, late Vageswar Prasad Srivastava, Resident of village Panduki, P.O.& P.S. Barwadda, Dist. Dhanbad @Rama Shankar
3. Rama Shankar Yadav @ Rama Shankar, son of Gaya Yadav, resident of Hadahawa vidya Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Gonda, Dist. Gonda, Uttar Pradesh ..... Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandip Kr. Burnwal, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu , Adv.
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 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. case no. 43 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 385, 353, 452, 120-B of the IPC, pending in the court of JMFC, Dhanbad.
3 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 20233. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the member of an unlawful assembly caused hurt to the informant, criminally intimidated him and demanded extortion from the informant, putting him in the fear of injury assaulted and used criminal force to deter the public servant to discharge their duty and committed trespass; in criminal conspiracy with each other.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly draws attention of the court to the Annexure 2 page 24-25 of the brief, which is the copy of the certified copy of the petition filed before the JMFC Dhanbad. It is further jointly submitted that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute outside the court and the informant does not want to proceed with the case. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the case. It is next submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the opposite party no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the case, hence, the chance of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. case no. 43 of 2023, will amount to abuse of the process of law and no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise has been effected to between the parties, hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. case no. 43 of 2023 be quashed qua the petitioners.
5. Learned Special. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. case no. 43 of 2023 in view of the compromise between the parties.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 4 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2023 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. 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) 5 Cr.M.P. No. 2455 of 2023
7. Because of the compromise between the offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused persons 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.
8. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of law and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners be put to an end. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Govindpur P.S. case no. 43 of 2023, against the petitioners, 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 17th August, 2023 Smita /AFR