Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Amiya Saha (Majhi) & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 April, 2014
Author: Tarun Kumar Gupta
Bench: Tarun Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Present: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Kumar Gupta CRR No.2967 of 2012 CRAN No.2012 of 2013 Sri Amiya Saha (Majhi) & Ors.
Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner: Mr. Partha Ghosh
Mr. Shamik Chatterjee
For the complainant: Mr. Abdur Rakib
For the State: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya
Judgement on : 25th April, 2014
Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.:-
One Smt. Sonamoni Muddi being O.P. No.2 of CRR No. 2967 of 2012 lodged a complaint against the four petitioners of said application before O.C. Faridpur resulting initiation of Faridpur P. S. Case No.82 of 2009 dated 29.11.2009 under Sections 354/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) (X) (XI) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It was alleged in said complaint that the F.I.R. named accused persons tried to outrage modesty of the informant and also threatened her with dire consequences and also abused her by using filthy languages by showing disrespect about her caste and creed. After investigation the I. O. submitted charge sheet vide Faridpur P. S. charge sheet No.37 of 2012 dated 30.04.2012 under Section 354/506/34 I. P. C. and 3(1) (X) (XI) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act of 1989) against the four F.I.R. named accused persons.
The four FIR named accused persons initially filed the application being CRR No.2967 of 2012 praying for quashing the F. I. R. on the grounds stated therein.
Later on the four F.I.R. named accused persons together with Sonamoni Muddi jointly filed an application being CRAN 400 of 2013 praying for quashing said GR Case No.914 of 2009 due to settlement of dispute between the parties. However, at the time of hearing of said application being CRAN 400 of 2013 the defacto complainant Smt. Sonamoni Muddi submitted that she had not yet settled the dispute with accused petitioner No.2 Dhananjoy Das alias Ananda. Accordingly, said application of compromise was rejected by this court with leave to the parties to file an appropriate application of compromise only with the persons with whom the dispute was settled. It was disposed of vide order dated 25.06.2013. Subsequently, all the four F. I.R. named accused persons together with the defacto complainant Sonamoni Muddi again jointly filed an application praying for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, out of court. Said application was supported with affidavits sworn by all the parties including the defacto complainant. A report was called from the investigation agency as to the claim of amicable settlement of the dispute by and between the parties vide order dated 4th of December, 2013. At the time of hearing on 12th of March, 2014 Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the State submits a report dated 4th of February, 2014 submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crimes), Burdwan stating that the matter has since been amicably settled between the complainant and the F. I. R. named accused persons. A written declaration of the defacto complainant was also enclosed with said report dated 4th of February, 2014.
Mr. Partha Ghosh appearing for the petitioner accused persons submits that when the parties have amicably settled the dispute then learned court should entertain said compromise as further proceeding of the criminal case will amount to an abuse of the process of the court. He further submits that though the offences were not compoundable but the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the criminal proceeding if it is found that there was amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and that further proceedings of criminal case will not bring out any fruitful result and that it will rather be an abuse of the process of the court. In support of his contention he refers a bunch of decisions of several High Courts, some of which are unreported and the rest are reported.
Mr. Abdur Rakib appearing for the defacto complainant supports Mr. Ghosh on this score.
Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Act of 1989 was enacted in order to prevent the commission of atrocities against members of schedule castes and schedule tribes.
According to him, said Act of 1989 was a social legislation with an aim to eradicate the commission of atrocities against the members of schedule castes and schedule tribes. He further submits that to show the gravity of offence committed under said Act of 1989 it was made triable by a special court and the persons alleged to have committed any offence under said Act were deprived of getting the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing anticipatory bail. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, the case alleging commission of offence under Act of 1989 should not be permitted to be quashed on the alleged grounds of settlement of dispute between the parties. According to Mr. Bhattacharya considering the seriousness of the offence as well as the repercussion of the same on the society at large this court should not use its extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash a proceeding under said Act of 1989 even on the ground of alleged compromise.
Mr. Ghosh submits that even if the offences alleged are not compoundable but still the High Court has ample power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceeding if it is found that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and that further continuation of the same will be an abuse of the process of the court. In this connection he refers the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 2 C Cr. L.R. (SC) 70. In that case a case under Section 406 I. P. C. which was not compoundable for involving an amount exceeding the prescribed limit was permitted to be quashed as it was a case of purely personal in nature and no useful purpose would be served for its continuation.
He next refers the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & another reported in 2012 (7) Supreme 1.
Para 57 of said case law is reproduced below:
"The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: 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 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statues like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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 High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrong doer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question (s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
He next refers the following unreported judgments of various High Courts to show that more or less under identical situation different High Courts in this country including Calcutta High Court time and again quashed a criminal proceeding filed under relevant provisions of the Act of 1989 on the ground of compromise between the parties. The reference of those unreported decisions are noted below.
01. CRL. Misc. No. M-14209 of 2013 (O& M) dated 12.11.2013 Sukhwinder Singh @ Pappan Gill & Another -vs. Sate of Punjab
02. Crl. Misc. No. M-30612 of 2013 (O&M) dated 19.11.2013 Gurbax Singh & Anr. -vs. State of Punjab & another
03. Crl. Misc. No. M-20852 of 2013 (O&M) dated 20.11.2013 Chhinderpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
04. Crl. Misc. No. M-23372 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 Ram Chander & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
05. Crl. Misc. No. M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) dated 20.08.2013 Dharam Pal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
06. Crl. Misc. No. M-3305 of 2012 dated 20.08.2013 Ram Singh & Ors.
-vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
07. Crl. Misc. No. M-3365 of 2009 dated 26.02.2009 Susta Ram & Ors.
vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
08. Crl. Misc. No.M-3144 of 2009 dated 24.02.2009 Sasnur Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
09. Crl. Misc. No.M-14887 of 2013 (O & M) along with M-24338 of 2013 dated 20.08.2013 Amrit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab
10. Crl. Misc. No. M-27791 of 2013 dated 27th January, 2014 Dalbir Singh and another vs. Gurnam Singh
11. CRM-M-43377 of 2013 dated 21.02.2014 Parampal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
In the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat Judicature at Ahmedabad
01. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.16058 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 Anil Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Manubhai Narinhbhai Parman & Ors.
02. Special Criminal Application No.2078 of 2012 dated 10.10.2013 Amrutbhai S Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
03. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15148 of 2013 dated 26.09.2013 Kishor Ganeswrao Bhakre & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
04. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.14369 of 2013 dated 16.09.2013 Manoj Bhavbha Chudasama & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.
05. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13669 of 2007 dated 09.04.2013 Jabbarsingh Balvat Singh Devda & Ors. vs. Jamnaben Lachhabhai Bajaj & Ors.
06. Criminal Miscellaneous application No.2285 of 2013 dated 28.01.2013 Pawan Vinodbhai Shah vs. State of Gujrat. In the High Court at Calcutta
01. CRR No.553 of 2013, CRAN No.538 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013 Rajnish Dubey & Ors. vs. State of W. B. & Anr.
02. CRR No.3689 of 2012, CRAN No.3599 of 2012 dated 18.12.2013 Manoj Chowdhury & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. He next submits that as various single benches of different High Courts including this High Court has quashed criminal proceedings even under the Act of 1989 on the ground of compromise between the parties, this court should follow those precedents. In support of his contention he refers the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija and others vs. the Collector, Thane, Maharashtra reported in AIR 1990 SC 261. He also refers case law of State of Punjab and another vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and another reported in (2004) 11 SCC 26 to impress upon this court that coordinate bench decision should be followed otherwise the matter should be referred to a larger bench.
Mr. Bhattacharya, on the other hand, has referred the case of State of M. P. and another vs. Ram Krishna Balothia and another reported in (1995) 3 SCC 221 to impress upon this court that considering the seriousness of the offences prescribed under the Act of 1989 the accused persons were not permitted to avail the benefits of anticipatory bail as prescribed under Section 438 Cr. P. C. and that said bar was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He also refers the case law of Surendra Nath Mohanty and another vs. State of Orissa reported in (1999) 5 SCC 238 to show that compounding of non-compoundable offence was not permissible. On the same issue he has referred the case of JIK Industries Limited & Ors. vs. Amarlal V. Jumani & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 1079.
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) it was specifically laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Ho'ble Supreme Court that even if an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P. C. but the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the criminal proceeding if the continuation of the same will be an abuse of the process of the court. In said case the Hon'ble Apex Court gave some instances where the High Court may apply said extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and in which cases the High Court should not exercise said power even if there was compromise. However, the list given under both the items were not exhaustive. Actually no straight jacket formula was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in said judgement. In that case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings, or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement of compromise between the victim and the wrong doer 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 questions is in the affirmative, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
In the present case the defacto complainant Sonamoni Muddi admittedly filed a complaint against present petitioners alleging commission of offence under Section 354/506/34 I. P. C. and under Section 3(1) (X) (XI) of the Act of 1989. Later on parties filed a joint petition of compromise praying for quashing the criminal proceeding in view of said compromise between them. It appears from the police report dated 4.02.14 that the defacto complainant submitted a written declaration admitting said compromise between the parties at the intervention of local persons. It was further stated therein that the accused persons admitted their guilt and prayed mercy and accordingly she voluntarily settled the dispute with the accused persons. It appears that the parties are residing in the same district though in two different villages. It further appears that now there is no bad blood between the parties in view of said compromise. There is no doubt that the Act of 1989 was enacted to promote social harmony so that fear of stringent punishment acts as a deterrence to curb social evil of caste exploitation. But it appears that the accused persons have admitted their guilt and prayed mercy to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant, in turn, has condoned their latches. In view of said compromise at the intervention of the local persons the defacto complainant is found to be satisfied and is not willing to further proceed with the case. The police report also supported said stand of the parties. Keeping in mind the interest of the parties and the ratio of various case laws as referred above I am of the opinion that the justice will be subserved if the present petition of compromise is allowed by way of quashing the FIR along with all subsequent proceedings.
Accordingly, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.
The revisional application and the connected applications stand disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the learned counsels of the parties, if applied for.
(Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.)