Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Shah vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2021

                                               1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 704 of 2021
                  Sanjay Shah, aged 53 years old, son of Late Chandulal Shah, resident
                  of 3B, Dharamchand Mansion, 4 Inner Circle Road, Bistupur, P.O. &
                  P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Harshad Shah, aged about 77 years, son of Premchand Shah, resident
                  of B4, Amalfi Building, 15 L.D. Ruparel Marg, Sahyadri Guest House,
                  Malabar Hills, P.O. & P.S. Malabar Hills, Dist. Mumbai, Maharashtra-
                  400006                                           ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate

For the Opposite Party-State : Ms. Bandana Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-II For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate

-----

04/13.12.2021. Heard Mr. Pradipto Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.

Bandana Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party-State and Mr. Ajay

Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Bistupur P.S. Case No. 97 of 1983 dated

16.03.1983 corresponding to G.R. Case No.459A of 1983 registered under

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein

that the Ambassador Car WME 1017, Beige White Colour Mark 4 which was

parked in front of his residence was stolen. The car was locked and

additional steering was also locked. The car was registered in West Bengal

in the name of M/s Bihar Extrusion Company Private Limited having its

registered office at 7 Lenin Sarani, Kolkata and its factory at Gamharia,

Jamshedpur. The informant was one of the Director of the Company and the

car was in his possession for a very long time. The informant suspected that

the car was taken away by one of the Directors of the Company because

there was a dispute between amongst the Directors of the Company. As per

preliminary quote, the Company was putting aside Rs.1250/- per month as

Director's remuneration. The car had been watched by the representative of

other Directors. It was came to the knowledge of the informant from other

sources that other Directors or their representatives had been planning to

take the possession of the car illegally. The informant was having the

possession of two sets of car keys. The value of car was approximately

Rs.60,000/- at that time. On the basis of these allegations, Bistupur P.S.

Case No. 97 of 1983 was registered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet has

been issued under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. He

further submits that admittedly the alleged stolen car was registered in the

name of M/s Bihar Extrusion Company Private Limited and not in the name

of the informant. He also submits that the informant who claimed to be

Director of M/s Bihar Extrusion Company Private Limited at the time of

registration of the case was expelled from his directorship vide Company's

resolution passed by an extra ordinary meeting held on 03.01.1983 i.e. prior

to lodging of the case. He further submits that the alleged stolen car was

taken away by the police on 18.03.1983 from the factory premises of the

Company. He also submits that the informant and the petitioner have

compromised the case. A joint compromise petition being I.A. No.5879 of

2021 has been filed by the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that both the parties

have compromised the case and the car in question was parked in the

premises of the Company. He further submits that the petitioner as well as

the opposite party no.2 have supported the said I.A. by way of swearing

separate affidavits. He further submits that both the Sections are

compoundable with the permission of the Court.

6. Learned counsel for the State has got no serious objection in view of

the fact that there is no societal interest involved in this case.

7. 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."

8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about

the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the

parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation

of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the joint compromise

petition, filed by both the parties before this Court stating that the case has

been compromised between the parties and the opposite party does not

want to proceed with the case, no societal interest is involved in this case

and also taking into consideration the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian

Singh (Supra), the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bistupur

P.S. Case No. 97 of 1983 dated 16.03.1983 corresponding to G.R. Case

No.459A of 1983, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur, are hereby quashed.