Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Anand vs State Of Jharkhand on 17 March, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No. 1185 of 2019
1. Sanjay Anand, aged about 50 years, S/o J.P. Anand
2. Smt. Preeti Devi, aged about 45 years, W/o Sanjay Anand
3. Pooja Chabbra, aged about 26 years, W/o Sumeet Chabbra
4. Surya Anand, aged about 16 years, S/o Sanjay Anand
All 1-4 resident of 701, Inderpiri Road No.3, Ratu Road, P.S.
Sukhdeonagar, P.S. Hehal, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Sumit Chabra, S/o Late Paras Ram Chabra, R/o Patel Nagar,
Bhurkunda Bazar, P.S. Patratu, P.O. Patratu, District- Ramgarh,
Jharkhand ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Gaurav Raj, Advocate
-----
09/17.03.2021. Heard Mr. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State
and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2021, husband and wife have
appeared in person through their Advocates in the Court.
3. This quashing application has been filed for quashing the entire
criminal proceeding connecting with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 44
of 2019 lodged under Sections 341/323/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The informant is the husband of petitioner no.3, namely, Pooja
Chhabra. Petitioner no.3 has filed Complaint Case No.874 of 2018 in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi and another Original
Maintenance Case No.58 of 2018 in the concerned court. In the
maintenance case, the matter was sent for mediation and in the mediation,
both the parties have agreed to compromise the case, wherein, it has been
agreed that Sumit Chabra (opposite party no.2) will pay a sum of Rs.2
Lakhs to Pooja Chhabra (petitioner no.3). Pursuant to that direction, which
was submitted at bar by the learned counsel for the parties, the divorce has
been taken place which has been confirmed by the husband and wife
appearing in person in the Court.
5. This is a case of F.I.R. and complaint case. The dispute has been
settled and divorce has been taken place. In light of the statement made
before the Court by the husband and wife in presence of learned counsel for
the parties, it appears that the settlement has been made out between the
parties.
6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4
SCC 58 in paragraphs 16 and 17, which are quoted herein below:
"16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes
in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an
important place and it has an important role to play in the
society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest
of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life
and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults
and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement
instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do
complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should
be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It
is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the
Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that
allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of
process of court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that
exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in
appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice
for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the
duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the
High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this
Court to pass such orders.
17. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases
in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the
Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances,
we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
4-7-2012 passed in Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. Aarkshi
Kendra Police Mahila Thana and quash the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore.
7. In view of these facts, there is no public interest involved in the case
in hand and there is no chance of conviction. There is no reason to
unnecessarily linger the matter in view of the fact that both the parties have
already settled the dispute. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in
connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2019 is quashed.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
