The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the proceedings of a mediation cannot be used in any court of law as Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 prohibits introduction as evidence of any information or communication and also debars inter alia the court from taking cognizance of such information or evidence.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that it was alleged by the informant that the Petitioner sexually exploited the informant, committed theft, and criminally intimated her. Hence, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n), 323, 417, 379, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was given the privilege of anticipatory bail on the condition that was agreed by the Petitioner during the mediation before the mediator that the Petitioner was to pay 40% of his basic salary to the informant per month. However, the Petitioner didn’t abide by the same, and the opposite party filed the Petition for the cancellation of bail. The learned magistrate canceled the bail granted to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner preferred the present criminal miscellaneous petition while invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings and the order passed by the Learned magistrate for the cancellation of the bail.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in canceling the bail granted to the Petitioner on the sole ground that the Petitioner failed to keep up his promise as made in the mediation which has got nothing to do with the bail order and in the bail order also no condition was imposed. It was furthermore submitted that there exists neither any allegation against the petitioner of violating any terms and conditions of the bail nor the petitioner committed any act, deed, or thing which can remotely be referred to the grounds for which the bail granted to the petitioner can be canceled.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Sudhir Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another, Biman Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Another, Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar, and Jyotshna Sharma @ Jyotsana Anand vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others.
Contentions of the State
The State submitted that the Petitioner didn’t comply with the condition to pay 40% of his basic salary, therefore, the privilege of anticipatory bail was canceled.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the mediation process cannot be utilized as evidence in any legal proceeding since Section 22(3) of the Mediation Act, 2023 prohibits the introduction of any communication or information as evidence and, among other things, prohibits the court from considering such evidence or information.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial court to cancel the privilege of bail granted. However, the court refused to quash the criminal proceedings.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous petition.
Case title: Md. Azad Khan @ Azad Khan V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.285 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.
Advocate for the Opp Party: Md. Azam, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
