1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2508 of 2018
----
Ramanujan Kumar Singh @ Ramanuj Kumar Singh, son of late Bhim Singh, aged about 32 years, resident of Subhash Colony, Near Almira Factory, PO and PS Mango, District East Sinbhbhum ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jhrakhand
2.Khushboo Kumari, daughter of late Nirmal Kumar Mukhi, resident of Kadma Water Area, PO & PS Kadma, District East Sinbhghum ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. L.C.N.Shahdeo, Advocate
----
6/05.04.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S.Case No.10 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.No.805 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.10.2017.
The F.I.R. was lodged by O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the informant and Ramu @ Ramanujan Kumar Singh are well known to each other and there was love affair between them. The said accused petitioner Rama @ Ramanujan Kumar Singh is employed in the police department and now he is posted at Anti Corruption Bureau as Computer Operator. It is alleged that the accused on the promises of marriage and by inducing her took her to police quarter at Sidhgora and forcibly made physical relation with her. Thereafter he took her to Sidhgora Surya Mandir and solemnized marriage with her and promised her that he would never leave her. On the said promise she has been residing with him for the last seven years. The accused used to make physical relations with her frequently by taking her to Chatra, Puri and even in his house in absence of his mother. During the course she became pregnant in the year 2016 and she wanted to give birth to the said child but the accused took her to Apex Hospital and admitted her on 30.04.2016 and got 2 aborted her pregnancy. She used to insist him to marry her but he used to delay the matter on one pretext or another. On 02.02.2017 she came to know that Ramu @ Rajanujan Kumar Singh has solemnized marriage with some other girl and when she wanted to talk him then he abused her telling that 'she is harizan (ghashi), neech and chor jati' and hence he would never marry her. She tried to contact him on phone but he started abusing her.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 30.10.2017 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under various sections of I.P.C including section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Mr. Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that a good sense has prevailed between the parties and compromise has been entered into between both the sides. He submits that the entire allegation is of non-performing of marriage and the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 were major and what has happened that was with consent of the petitioner and the O.P.No.2.
Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has also accepted that the compromise has been taken place between the petitioner as well as O.P.No.2 and the I.A. has been filed for the same. He submits that the said I.A. is supported by the affidavits of O.P.No.2 as well as the petitioner.
In view of the above fact and considering that the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 were major and what has happened that was with consent of the petitioner and the O.P.No.2, there is no societal interest involved in this petition and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court can interfere under section 482 Cr.P.C in this petition. So far as the Scheduled Caste 3 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned although it is not compoundable, in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.19 in the case of "Ram Gopal and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh" [Cr.Appeal No.489 of 2020], this Court can exercise power. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"19. We thus sum−up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences compoundable within the statutory framework, the extra−ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) luntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/orother relevant considerations."
In view of the aforesaid compromise and upon going through the I.A. No.2217 of 2021, this Court is inclined to invoke the power conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. as such for the reason that there must be firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in the petition can be categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; secondly, the nature of allegation with regard to physical relationship as both are major and thirdly, for the administration of criminal justice system and in presence of amicable settlement between the parties and for the above reasons and analysis as also in view of the statement made in the said I.A., this Court is inclined to interfere and exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C as such, the entire criminal proceeding, so far as the petitioner is concerned, arising out of Mahila P.S.Case No.10 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.No.805 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 30.10.2017, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are hereby quashed.
Cr.M.P. No. 2508 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No.2217 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/