Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Prasad Sinha @ Sanjay Kumar ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1037 of 2021
----
Sanjay Prasad Sinha @ Sanjay Kumar Sinha @ Sanjay Pd. Sinha, s/o late
B.P.Sinha, aged about 45 years, r/o Biraj Bhawan, Subhash Nagar, Near
Baba Sweets, Saraidhela, PO and PS-Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Babita Mukherjee Barnwal, w/o Sujit Kumar Barnwal, r/o Ganesh
Bhawan, Shiv Mandir Road, Near Gaushala, S.N.Road, PO-Asansol, PS-
South Asansol, District-Burdman (West Bengal)...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Faiyaz Alam, Advocate
For the State :- APP
----
4/11.08.2021 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Faiyaz Alam, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and the
learned State counsel.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in
view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation
arising due to COVID-19 pandemic.
3. The present application is filed under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of
Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S Case No. 114 of 2013 corresponding to
G.R.Case No. 445 of 2013 initiated for the alleged offence punishable
under sections 467/468/471/420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Dhanbad.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the
informant. Accordingly, compromise petition being I.A. No.3116 of 2021
has been filed on 05.07.2021 interalia stating that the matter has been
amicably settled out-side the court and now the good and harmonious
relation have been restored between the parties and in view of the
compromise arrived at between the parties the informant does not want
to proceed with this case further against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2- informant
has accepted that the case has been compromised between the parties
wherein in paragraph-2 onwards of the same it has been stated that
compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the
informant in connection with Dhanbad Bank More P.S.Case No. 114 of
2013 corresponding to G.R case no. 445 of 2013.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 jointly submitted that in view
of the compromise arrived at between the informant and the petitioner,
the continuance of the present criminal case would be a futile exercise of
judicial proceedings before the learned court below as the opposite party
No.2 and other witnesses will not come forward to support the
prosecution case.
7. The learned A.P.P appearing for the State submitted that in
view of the compromise arrived at between the parties as also in view of
the aforesaid I.A. supporting this fact, appropriate order may be passed
in this case.
8. Having regard to the above submission and also in view of
the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 admitting the contents of
the compromise petition, this court is of the view that no fruitful purpose
will be served if the trial of the case continues before the learned court
below and it will be a result in futile exercise of judicial proceedings as
the opposite party no.2 and other witnesses will not come forward to
support the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid position as also
in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the
case of 'Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.State of Punjab and Anr' reported in
{2014(3)East Cr.Case 19(SC)}, in paragraph -33 of the said Judgment the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held :-
"In the present case, FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 was registered under sections
307/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Investigation was completed, whereafter challan
was presented in the court against the petitioner
herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is
at the stage of recording of evidence. At this
juncture, parties entered into compromise on the
basis of which petition under section 482 of the
Code was filed by the petitioners namely the
accused persons for quashing of the criminal
proceedings under the said FIR.As per the copy of
the settlement which was annexed along with the
petition, the compromise took place between the
parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of
the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the
Chairmanship of Sarpanch.It is stated that on the
intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the
parties were agreed for compromise and have also
decided to live with peace in future with each other.
It was argued that since the parties have decided to
keep harmony between the parties so that in future
they are able to live with peace and love and they
are the residents of the same village, the High Court
should have accepted the said compromise and
quashed the proceedings".
9. The aforesaid proposition of law has been decided by this
Bench in Cr.M.P No. 1754 of 2013 (Praveen Mittal and Ors Vs. State of
Jharkhand).
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case and in view of the legal position as set out in the aforesaid
judgment, the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanbad (Bank More)
P.S.Case No.114 of 2013 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 445 of 2013 for
the alleged offence punishable under sections 467/ 468/ 471/ 420/ 504/
506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad is ordered to be quashed with respect to
this petitioner.
11. Accordingly, this petition [Cr.M.P. No.1037 of 2021] stands
disposed of.
12. I.A.No.3116 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
