Jharkhand High Court
Dilip Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 September, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1591 of 2019
----
Dilip Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Kripa Narayan Paswan, resident
of Village Kot, PO and PS Lesliganj, District Palamau, Jharkhand
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Khusbu Kumari, d/o late Pramod Kumar, resident of Local Academy,
Daltonganj, PO Daltonganj, PS Daltonganj (Town), District Palamau
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
----
3/13.09.2021 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the State and
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, the 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 petition has been filed for quashing the First
Information Report along with the entire criminal proceeding arising out
of Daltonganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No.54 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018.
4. The First Information Report was lodged by O.P.No.2
alleging therein that by way of false promise the petitioner has made
physical relation with the O.P.No.2.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
O.P.no.2 jointly submit that the petitioner and O.P.no.2 have been
married and they are living peacefully and enjoying their conjugal life.
The marriage has been registered in the Office of Registrar of Marriage in
the District of Garhwa. The petitioner has moved before this Court in
A.B.A. No.7943/2018 and in that A.B.A, O.P.No.2 was also heard by this
Court and anticipatory bail was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of the submission of the O.P.No.2 of solemnization
of marriage between the parties and leading happily their conjugal life,
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and O.P.No.2 submits
that charge has been framed in the concerned court and thereafter only
the matter is being adjourned and no witnesses have been examined
thereafter. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Anand Kumar Mahatta v.
State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein it has been
held that inherent power of the High Court to quash the proceeding can
be exercised even after the charge sheet has been filed. Paragraph no.16
of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"16. There is nothing in the words of this section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse
of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the
FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge
application is pending with the trial court5 . Indeed, it would be a
travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be
interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and
the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the
contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR
stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet
after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent
abuse of process of power of any court."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment now it is well settled that
at any stage, to prevent the abuse of process of law, FIR can be quashed
by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From the aforesaid
paragraph, it is also clear that filing of the charge-sheet cannot be a
ground to refuse quashing of the FIR, if no criminal offence is made out.
Thus, there is no bar in quashing the F.I.R even when the charge sheet
has been filed and the case has proceeded. In the F.I.R., allegation of
physical relation on a false promise has been made and in view of
subsequent development, as both the parties, the petitioner and the
O.P.No.2 are married and they are enjoying conjugal life, this Court can
exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C as there is no societal interest
involved and the parties are married, no fruitful purpose will be served in
allowing to continue the proceeding.
8. In view of the above facts and considering that the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above, the Court
quash the F.I.R and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of
Daltonganj (Mahila) P.S. Case No.54 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018 and the
subsequent proceeding are also hereby quashed.
9. The instant petition [Cr.M.P.No.1591 of 2019] stands
allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
