Jharkhand High Court
Ishwar Prakash Sahani Aged About ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3671 of 2018
With
I.A. No.1938 of 2021
------
1. Ishwar Prakash Sahani aged about 31 years
2. Hitesh Sahani aged about 44 years
Both son of Shyam Prakash Sahani
3. Shyam Prakash Sahani aged about 76 years, S/o Late Kishan Lal Sahani
All resident of Village Belwatikar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Eshita Khanna, wife of Ishwar Prakash Sahani, daughter of Ramesh
Khanna, resident of 302, Sri Krishna Plaza, Katras Road, P.O. Matkuriya,
P.S. Bank More, District Dhanbad
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Debarsi Mondal, Advocate
------
07/22.06.2021 Heard Mr. Randhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Vishwanath Ray, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Debarsi Mondal,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This criminal miscellaneous 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. None of the parties have
complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent
this matter has been heard.
The petitioners have filed this quashing application for quashing of
entire criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.168 of 2018
dated 21.06.2018 corresponding to G.R. No.2626 of 2018 pending in the
Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.
The case was lodged on the following facts:-
The O.P. No.2 has lodged First Information Report alleging therein
that informant was married with petitioner no.1 on 28.04.2016 as per Hindu
Rites and at the time of marriage, the parents of the informant have
incurred expenses of Rupees Twelve Lacs excluding jewellery, utensils,
electronics items, cloths and other house hold articles. The husband of
informant is an employee of Future Group Company, Gurgaon, Delhi and the
informant was residing with her husband at Golden Pam, Block-1401, Sector
168, Noida. The informant has further alleged that in absence of her
husband, the father-in-law and brother-in-law came at her home and
provoked her husband for demanding a four wheeler from her father and
when informant denied then the accused persons abused her and assaulted
her. It is further alleged that her husband used to abuse her and beat her.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this case
is arising out of matrimonial dispute and now the compromise has been
entered between petitioners and opposite party no.2 and memorandum of
settlement has been signed by both the parties which has been brought on
record by way of filing I.A. No.1938 of 2021.
Mr. Debarsi Mondal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the
opposite party no.2, supports the contention of petitioners. He submits that
in the light of memorandum of settlement filed in the Family Courts Saket,
New Delhi wherein divorce decree has been passed and in terms of divorce
decree, an amount of Rupees Two Lacs has already been paid to the
opposite party no.2 by the petitioner.
Both the counsel appearing for the petitioners and opposite party
no.2 jointly submit that this is a case arising out of matrimonial dispute and
no public policy is involved in the case as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v.
Union of India, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 443. Para 38 of the judgment
is quoted hereinbelow:-
38. In Rajesh Sharma, there is introduction of a third agency which has
nothing to do with the Code and that apart, the Committees have been
empowered to suggest a report failing which no arrest can be made. The
directions to settle a case after it is registered is not a correct expression of
law. A criminal proceeding which is not compoundable can be quashed by the
High Court under Section 482 CrPC. When settlement takes place, then both
the parties can file a petition under Section 482 CrPC and the High Court,
considering the bona fide of the petition, may quash the same. The power
rests with the High Court. In this regard, we may reproduce a passage from a
three-Judge Bench in Gian Singh. In the said case, it has been held that: (Gian
Singh case, SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)
"61. ... 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 view of above submission and considering that the matter has
been settled and divorce decree has been passed, thus, no purpose will be
served by continuing this criminal proceeding. Accordingly, the entire
criminal proceeding arising out of Bankmore P.S. Case No.168 of 2018 dated
21.06.2018 corresponding to G.R. No.2626 of 2018 pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. I.A. No.1938 of
2021 is also disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
