Jharkhand High Court
Raghavendra Singh @ Anil Chand vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.366 of 2021
With
I.A. No.1149 of 2021
------
1. Raghavendra Singh @ Anil Chand, aged about 39 years S/o Rana
Pratap Chand, resident of Village Narre, P.O. Rajgarh, P.S. Gagaha,
District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh
2. Rajeev Pandey @ D.K. Pandey, aged about 34 years, S/o Anil Pandey,
resident of Village Chanderia, P.O. Kohra Bujurg, P.S.Gagaha, District
Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh
3. Pradeep Chand aged about 36 years, S/o Hrikant Chand, resident of
Village Narre, P.O. Rajgarh, P.S. Gagaha, District Gorakhpur, Uttar
Pradesh
4. Shakti Ramchandra Singh @ Shakti Singh @ Akshay Singh aged about
33 years S/O Ramchandra Singh, resident of Village Bhaiya Phulwaria,
P.O. Kavamtar Sherkhan, P.S. Bhulwani, District Deoria, Uttar Pradesh
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Ramjee Lal
Agarwal, resident of near Radhakrishna Mandir, Ward No.6, P.O. & P.S.
Seraikela, District Seraikela, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Parties
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amitabh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
------
04/16.03.2021 Heard Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiv
Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-State as well as
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, 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 preferred this petitioner for quashing the order
taking cognizance dated 14.10.2019 as well as entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Seraikela P.S. Case No.86 of 2019 corresponding to G.R.
No.618 of 2019.
The facts of this case in narrow compass is that a complaint was
instituted on the basis of statement of opposite party no.2 in this petition.
One Raghavendra Singh and Rajeev Panday having company named
"Organic India Agrotech". The is allegation is that a total amount of
Rs.15,07,000/- have been misappropriated by the petitioners and to that
effect an F.I.R. was lodged and cognizance was taken.
I.A. No.1149 of 2021 has been filed which is affidavited by the
petitioners as well as opposite party no.2 wherein it has been disclosed that
both the parties have entered into compromise and the petitioners have paid
the due amount through bank draft as well as NEFT which has been duly
received by the opposite party. The receiving draft is annexed as Annexure 1
to the said I.A.
Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly submit that in the
light of this compromise, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be
quashed as it is arising out of money transaction and the matter has been
settled between the parties. They submit that the section 420 and 406 of
the Indian Penal Code is compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure with the permission of the Court before which any
prosecution for such offence is pending and by the person who has been
cheated. They submit that the High Court under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure cannot interfere in the light of the compromise as no
fruitful purpose will be served as there is no chance of conviction in the trial
Court in view of the said compromise.
In view of above facts and on perusal of the said I.A., it transpires
that the amount in question has been paid to the opposite party no.2. The
receiving is annexed with the said I.A. The settlement to that effect has
been given in para 4 of the said I.A. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Shiji
v. Radhika reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705. Para 7, 10, 18 and 19 the
judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
7. This Court has, in several decisions, declared that the offences under
Section 320 CrPC which are not compoundable with or without the
permission of the court cannot be allowed to be compounded. In Ram
Lal v. State of J&K this Court referred to Section 320(9) CrPC to declare
that such offences as are made compoundable under Section 320 can
alone be compounded and none else. This Court declared two earlier
decisions rendered in Y. Suresh Babu v. State of A.P. and Mahesh Chand
v. State of Rajasthan, to be per incuriam inasmuch as the same
permitted composition of offences not otherwise compoundable under
Section 320 CrPC.
10. There is another line of decisions in which this Court has taken note
of the compromise arrived at between the parties and quashed the
prosecution in exercise of powers vested in the High Court under Section
482 CrPC. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy this Court held that the
High Court was entitled to quash the proceedings if it came to the
conclusion that the ends of justice so required. This Court observed:
(SCC pp. 702-03, para 7)
"7. ... Section 482 of the new Code, which corresponds to
Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that:
'561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.--
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to
quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal
matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a
court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon
of harassment or persecution. 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. The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be
administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling
necessity for making these observations is that without a proper
realisation 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."
18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the
power under Section 482 CrPC by itself, makes it obligatory for the High
Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and
the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and
only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the
clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an
abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to
enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section
482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of
power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where
refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of
law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is
called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an
appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have
to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine
whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.
19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in
question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two
plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad
daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil
dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been
resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where
the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now
described by her as arising out of some "misunderstanding and
misconception" will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is
noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to
the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution
version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an
empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be
justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of
law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.
In view of above fact that opposite party no.2 is here and he has
stated on oath that he has received the amount in question and no fruitful
purpose would be served if the said compromise will not be allowed. In view
of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji v. Radhika
(supra), the Court is inclined to interfere in the matter.
Accordingly, the order dated 14.10.2019 as well as entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Seraikela P.S. Case No.86 of 2019
corresponding to G.R. No.618 of 2019 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Seraikella, is hereby quashed.
This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A.
No.1149 of 2021 is also disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Anit
