Pranab Kumar Roy vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4031 Jhar

                                          1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 2673 of 2019

1. Pranab Kumar Roy
2. Somnath Roy
3. Mrs. Shayamoli Roy @ Shyamali Roy                     ...... Petitioners
                             Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Mr. Rathin Mukherjee                                  ...... Opposite Parties
                    ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                            ---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, Advocate

7Dated: 27/10/2021 Heard Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioners,

Mr. Jitendra Pandy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, learned

counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This 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.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of order

dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in

Complaint Case No. 1963 of 2018 whereby cognizance has been taken under section

420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of the D.P. Act against the

petitioners.

4. Complaint was filed stating therein that the marriage of the daughter of

the O.P. No. 2 with petitioner no. 2 was fixed for 24.11.2018 and after expensing the

huge money by the O.P. No. 2 on the ring ceremony and other arrangements, the

marriage ceremony was denied by the accused persons saying that if Rs. 4,00,000/- is

not paid to them, the marriage would not be solemnized.

5. By order dated 11.06.2019 cognizance has been taken against the

petitioner under section 420 I.P.C. and under section 4 of the D.P. Act

6. Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that ingredient of section 420 I.P.C. is not made out. The case is civil in

nature. He submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties for

that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners as well as O.P.

No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 5935 of 2021 seeking permission to compromise the case.

7. In para 5 of the interlocutory application, it has been stated that the

criminal proceeding was instituted by O.P. No. 2 due to certain misunderstanding.

Further in para 6 of the said application, it has been stated that the O.P. No. 2 has

got no objection if the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners, are

quashed.

8. Mr. D.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits

that compromise has reached between the parties. This case arises out of

matrimonial dispute. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be

quashed.

9. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of

matrimonial dispute and as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass

appropriate order.

10. 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."

11. 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."

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

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

reached between the parties, the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case,

no societal interest is 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), the entire criminal proceeding arising out of

Complaint Case No. 1963 of 2018 as well as the order taking cognizance dated

11.06.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag, are hereby

quashed.

13. Cr.M.P. No. 2673 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No.

5935 of 2021 also stands allowed and disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if

any, also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/