Jharkhand High Court
Ujjwal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1106 of 2021
with
I.A. No. 3240 of 2021
Ujjwal Kumar ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sangita Devi ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate.
------
02/ 07.09.2021 Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the
State as also Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing 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 the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Latehar P.S.
Case No. 160 of 2020, registered under Sections 500, 501 and 509 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act,
pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.
4. On the written report of the informant, who is O.P. No. 2 in
this case, the FIR was lodged.
On 08.06.2020 at about 01.28 P.M., 02.55 P.M. and 04.17
P.M. there were 40 obscene video clips were sent on whatsapp in her
mobile phone from the holder of Mobile No. 7542908662 and the
said number was registered as Rajababu on Truecaller. When her
family member tried to investigate about the clips from the mobile
number holder, the person started cross-questioning about the
evidence that he sent the video clips. The alleged video clips were
number was not recharged with internet pack earlier. She further
stated that due to obscene video clips, informant's reputation got
affected amongst family and society. She felt uncomfortable and got
depressed, she felt so bad that she even started thinking of attempting
suicide.
5. On the basis of said written report, an FIR bearing Latehar
P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020 dated 01.07.2020 was registered under Sections
500, 501 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the
Information Technology Act against the petitioner.
6. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that Sections 500, 501 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code
are compoundable, but Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act
is not compoundable.
7. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.
No. 2 accepts the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Mr. Prakash submits that in misconception the said case was
filed and now the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the present
case.
8. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that this is not a case of heinous crime i.e. murder, rape,
dacoity etc. and also no State policy is involved in this case. Learned
counsel further submits that the dispute of the present case is purely
private in nature and with the intervention of the well wishers they have
compromised the matter and harmonious relation has been restored
amongst them. Learned counsel also submits that one interlocutory
application being I.A. No. 3240 of 2021 has been filed jointly for
compromising their case.
9. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for
the State submits that Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act is
not compoundable and the parties have direct filed a joint compromise
petition in this case before this Court.
10. In view of the facts of this case, this Court has examined the
submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties and also the scope
of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reference in this regard
may be made in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr."
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraphs-58 and 61 has held as follows:-
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has been settled
although the offences are not compoundable, it does so
as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings
will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case
demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt,
crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public
and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers
and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not
safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the
victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes
have been made compoundable in law, with or without
the permission of the court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of
moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that capacity, the
settlement between the offender and the victim can
have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil
flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family
dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and
the offender and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that
such offences have not been made compoundable, the
High Court may within the framework of its inherent
power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of
such settlement, there is hardly 4 any likelihood of the
offender being convicted and by not quashing the
criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is
illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend
on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
prescribed.
.........................................................................................
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."
11. On perusal of the joint compromise petition, it transpires that
the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 have mutually decided to compromise the
matter, which has been discussed in paragraphs-3, 4 and 5 of the said
petition. There is no doubt that Section 67(A) of the Information
Technology Act is not compoundable, as the said Section clearly stipulates
punishment for publishing and transmitting obscene material in electronic
form, but since the parties have settled their dispute between them and it is
not a case of public policy and also it is not a case of heinous crime i.e.
murder, rape, dacoity etc., the case of the petitioner is fully covered with
the judgment particularly in paras-58 and 61 of the Gian Singh's case
(Supra).
12. In such a situation, this is a fit case of exercising discretionary
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as both the parties have amicably settled
their dispute between the parties, for which, a joint compromise petition
has also been filed and also to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the
abuse of process of any court. Considering that there is harmonious
relationship restored between the parties and both the parties have decided
not to pursue this case, the Court can exercise its power under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of
Latehar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020, registered under Sections 500, 501 and
509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67(A) of the Information
Technology Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Latehar, are hereby quashed.
14. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and
disposed of. The aforesaid interlocutory application also stands disposed
of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
