Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4603 Jhar

                                         1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 2065 of 2021

1.  Chandan Kumar Singh @ Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Singh
2.  Subhash Singh
3.  Bul Bul Singh
4.  Sunakshi                                        ...... Petitioners
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Preeti Kumari                                    ...... Opposite Parties
                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                           ---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
For the State       : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

02/Dated: 06/12/2021

Heard Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya

Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Khalari

P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021, registered for the offences under sections 498A, 406, 506,

34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, at Ranchi.

3. The F.I.R. was instituted stating therein that at the instance of the

petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2, the marriage of the informant was solemnized

with the petitioner no. 1-Chandan Kumar Singh. It is alleged that the informant's

father paid altogether Rs. 13,45,000/- to the petitioners' father and family members

apart from the ornaments in the said marriage. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 2

demanded a brand new car from the informant's father and due to non-fulfillment of

the same, the informant was tortured by the accused persons both mentally and

physically. The informant's father took the informant Khalari on 09.06.2019. The

father of the informant tried to reconcile the matter but the accused persons were

adamant on their demand and also threatened the informant that the obscene video

will be disclosed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 and O.P.

No. 2 have filed an application under section 13(B) of the Hindi Marriage Act for

divorce by mutual consent before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Ranchi which has been registered as O.S. (M.T.S.) Case N. 471/2021 and the said

case was admitted by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide order dated

07.08.2021. He submits that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of O.P. No. 2. He submits

that petitioner no. 1 and O.P. No. 2 have agreed to withdraw the case, if any, either

civil or criminal or any other case filed against each other prior to second and final

motion of mutual divorce petition. The said application has been annexed with this

petition.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of

matrimonial dispute, the Court may pass appropriate order.

7. This case arises out of matrimonial dispute. There is no societal interest

involved in this case.

8. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.,

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in those

cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also

there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between

themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

30. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the

compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche."

9. In the case of " B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another",

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in

terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 12, 13,

and 14 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

"8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. .............................................................................................................................

10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has to be in the "negative". It would, however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons including lack of bona fides.

11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre it was held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the

proceedings.

12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code."

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that there is no societal

interest involved in this case and also taking into consideration the judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and B.S.

Joshi (Supra), the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report

in connection with Khalari P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021, pending in the Court of Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi, are hereby quashed.

11. Cr.M.P. No. 2065 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of. Pending

interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/