Nurulla Khan @ Guddu Khan @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3843 Jhar

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 3486 of 2019

Nurulla Khan @ Guddu Khan @ Nurullah, aged about 24 years, son of Rafique
Khan, resident of village Khutte, P.O. Sandi, P.S. Ormanjhi, District-Ranchi
                                                                  ...... Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjeeda Khatoon, daughter of Md. Rafique Khan and wife of Guddu Khan,
resident of village and P.O. Balak, P.S. Bagodar, District-Giridih
                                                           ...... Opp. Parties
                          With
                        Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2015

1. Md. Rafique Khan @ Rafique Khan
2. Asghari Khatoon, wife of Mumtaz Khan
3. Kalam @ Loha Khan, son of Md. Rafique Khan
4. Asma Khatoon, wife of Md. Rafique Khan
5. Rakib Khan, son of Md. Rafique Khan
6. Sairun Khatoon, daughter of Md. Rafique Khan
   Nos. 1, 3,4 and 5 are residents of village Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. and District-
   Hazaribagh, Nos. 2 and 6 are residents of village-Kuttey, P.O. Saundi, P.S.
   Sikidiri, District-Ranchi
                                                              ...... Petitioners
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Sanjeeda Khatoon, daughter of Md. Rafique Khan and wife of Guddu Khan,
resident of Balak, P.O. and P.S. Bagodar, District-Giridih
                                            ...... Opp. Parties


                    ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioners       : Mr. Nilesh Kumar. Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2        : Ms. Aanya, Advocate
                          .........
03/Dated: 07/10/2021

Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Aanya, learned counsel for

the O.P. No. 2.

2. Cr.M.P. No. 3486 of 2019 has been filed by husband of O.P. No.

2 and Cr.M.P. No. 2477 of 2015 has been filed by in-laws of the O.P. No. 2 for

quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order dated 29.08.2014

whereby cognizance has been taken under section 498A of the Indian Penal

code, in connection with Complaint Case No. 275 of 2014 pending, pending in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih.

3. The complainant has filed Complaint Case No. 275 of 2014

against seven accused persons named in complaint petition alleging therein

that her marriage was solemnized with Guddu Khan petitioner in Cr.M.P. No.

3486 of 2019 on 23.11.2010. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial

house where she resided as husband and wife for about one year but after that

she was subjected to torture and cruelty. She further alleged that the accused

persons demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her. It is further alleged that when the

said demand was not fulfilled, all the accused persons committed torture and

cruelty upon her. Thereafter, the victim/complainant informed the matter to her

parents who also tried to resolve the issue but the accused persons did not

stop their demand and subsequently they also tried to kill the complainant and

ousted her from their house after snatching Rs. 35,000/-, since then the

complainant is residing with her parents. On the basis of these allegations, the

complaint case was filed.

4. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that vide order 29.08.2014 cognizance has been taken under section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that now the parties have

entered into compromise and the matter has been amicably settled and for

that I.A. No. 1702 of 2020 (in Cr.M.P. No. 3486 of 2019) has been filed. He

further submits that by way of this interlocutory application, joint compromise

petition has been brought on record.

5. Ms. Aanya, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 also

accepts about the compromise arrived at between the parties.

6. Mr. Tapas Rai, learned counsel for the State submits that

there is no societal interest involved in this case and in the light of compromise,

this Court may pass appropriate order.

7. In view of the above facts, the Court has gone through the

I.A. No. 1702 of 2020, wherein it has been mentioned that both the parties

have entered into compromise and the dispute has been settled, there is no

societal interest involved. Reference may be made to 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, there is no

societal interest involved in this case and also taking into consideration the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Narinder Singh & Ors."

(Supra) and "Gian Singh" (Supra), no purpose will serve in allowing to

continue the proceeding. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order

dated 29.08.2014 whereby cognizance has been taken under section 498A of

the Indian Penal code, in connection with Complaint Case No. 275 of 2014

pending, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Giridih, are

hereby, quashed.

10. Both criminal miscellaneous petitions stand allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 1702 of 2020 also stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/-