The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that where the compromise is entered into between the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the Sections are not compoundable.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant lodged the FIR alleging that the co-villagers stole 50-50 KG bag of rice after breaking the lock of the shop. Furthermore, it was alleged that the accused persons started assaulting and abusing the informant by his caste name.
The present petition is filed to quash the FIR registered under Section 341, 323, 387, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the FIR was lodged five months after the incident. It was furthermore submitted that the opposite party no. 2 has left for his heavenly abode and the application has been filed by his son for substitution.
Contentions of the Opposite Party No. 2
The Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the son of the informant is not willing to proceed further with the case as there has been a compromise between the parties.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble High Court observed that even if the Sections are not compoundable, the High Court may use its authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the parties have settled and there is no social interest.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.
It was noted that the occurrence in question can be classified as purely personal or having overtones of private criminal proceedings; secondly, the complaint is about taking away rice; and thirdly, the administration of the criminal justice system will remain unaffected upon acceptance of the parties' amicable settlement.
Based on these considerations, the court quashed the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed and disposed of the Petition.
Case title: Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 3743 of 2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
Advocate for the Opposite Party no. 2: Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
