Jharkhand High Court
Anita Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 1663 of 2020
----
1.Anita Lal, age-45 years, w/o Nirmal Yadav, r/o Kelaberi, Dhangarsi, PO
and PS -Borio(J), Dist. Sahebganj, Jharkhand
2.Lalan Yadav @ Sumit Kumar Yadav, age 21, s/o Laxman Yadav, r/o St.
Xaviers School Road, Naya Tola, Purani Sahebganj, PO+PS-Sahebganj(T),
Dist.Sahebganj, Jharkhand ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Girija Devi, w/o Manilal Paswan, r/o Pokharia, PO+PS-Borio(J),
District-Sahebganj (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State :- Md. Hatim, APP
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. S.K. Thakur, Advocate
----
4/07.12.2021 Heard Mr. S.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Hatim, the learned APP for the respondent
State and Mr. S.K. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
O.P.No.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding including the F.I.R in connection with Sahebganj (T)
P.S. SC/ST Case No.15/2019 stands registered u/s 147, 148, 341, 323,
448, 354, 427, 506, 504, 379 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and also
under section 3(i)(f)(s) of the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Sahebganj.
3. The informant has filed the case stating therein that:
The informant who claims to be a Paswan caste
that on 28.04.2019 at about 10 am when she saw that
about 15-17 people were misbehaving with her
neighbour namely, Tunni Devi and her children and
trying to violate her modesty, she with an intention to
save her neighbour went to the sopt and tried to reason
with the people who then started to abuse and beat the
informant thereafter the accused persons abused them,
pointed a gun at the informant and when children of
the informant came to her rescue the accused persons
started beating them, used caste related derogatory
words, fired and entered into the house of the
informant and vandalized the furniture and vehicles as
well as the roof of the neighbours house thereafter
fired arial shots and threatened everyone that if any
legal action is taken they will kill them, hence the FIR
has been lodged.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and
compromise petition has been filed before the concerned Court. He
submits that under the misconception the case was filed under SC/ST Act
and further sections of the IPC. He submits that in the interest of justice,
this petition may kindly be allowed.
5. Mr. Shashi Kant Thakur, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
has appeared. He submits that compromise has been taken place which
has been brought on record by way of filing counter affidavit on behalf of
the O.P.No.2. He also submits that it may be quashed.
6. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions
of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, a reference
may be made to the case of "Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab
& Another", reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising inherent power
to quash the criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offence in
view of compromise which has been arrived between the parties as held
in paragraph no.29(2) and paragraph 29(5) of the said judgment, is as
under:
"29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the quiding factor in such cases would
be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court
While exercising the power the High Court is
to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two
objectives.
xxx xxx xxx
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is
to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases."
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
compromise matter. The case arising out of SC/ST Act. In the case of
"Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh" [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of
2011] wherein at paragraph no.16, it has been observed as follows:
"16. On the other hand, where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question, although covered
under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature,
or where the alleged offence has not been committed on
account of the caste of the victim, or where the
continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse
of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to
quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering
a prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the
underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened
or diminished even if the felony in question goes
unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered
under a special statute would not refrain this Court or the
High Court, from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
8. In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Narinder Singh & Others v. State
of Punjab & Another" and "Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh"
(supra), the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sahebganj(T)P.S.
SC/ST Case No.15/2019, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Sahebganj including the F.I.R. is hereby quashed.
9. The petition [Cr.M.P.No.1663 of 2020] is allowed and
stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/,
