Jharkhand High Court

Madan Mohan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 September, 2021

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 1584 of 2021

1.Madan Mohan Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Tej Narayan Singh, resident
of Prabhu Dwar, Nirala Path, Baridih Basti, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidgora, District-
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur
2.Nagendra Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Tej Narayan Singh, resident of
Prabhu Dwar, Nirala Path, Baridih Basti, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, District-East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur                                    ...... Petitioner
                         Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh, son of late Upendra Prasad Singh, resident of
Adarshnagar, Aman Path, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, District-East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur                                        ...... Opp. Parties

                   ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioner       : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the State            : Mr. Abhishek Singh, A.C. to G.A.-V
For the O.P. No. 2       : Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate
                         .........
03/Dated: 28/09/2021
                   Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Kumar

Pawan, 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 F.I.R. arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021 registered under

sections 188/211/406/420/468/500 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and

also for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 16.06.2021 including entire

criminal proceeding arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, pending in

the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur.

4. The complainant has filed Complaint Case No. 468/2021

stating therein that his wife namely, Shabnam Kumari worked from 03.01.1997 till 27.07.2019 in Netaji Subhas Public School affiliated to CBSE

Board however the management of the school of which petitioner no. 1 is

secretary, who violated all the regulations of the CBSE Board and the Central

Government Guidelines. It is further alleged that the teachers and other staffs

of the said school are not given salary as per the standard scale and the

students and parents are exploited financially. It is further alleged that the

secretary illegally withdraws salary from the bank account of the staffs and

teachers working in the school and several irregularities were done in payment

of salary of the teachers and staffs and when the said act was opposed by the

teachers/staffs, they were given oral instruction not to come to the school from

the next day. It is further alleged that Rs. 4,27,50,000/- has been embezzled

from the account of the informant's wife. On the basis of these allegations, the

complaint case was filed.

5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that initially the complaint petition was filed, whereby, by

order dated 12.02.2021, the complaint was referred to the concerned police

station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of F.I.R. and investigate the

matter. Pursuant thereto Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021 under sections

188/211/406/420/468/500 and 120B has been registered. He further submits

after investigation police submitted final form stating therein that there is no

material against the petitioners thereafter the case was directed to be closed.

Thereafter, a protest-cum-complaint petition has been filed by the O.P. No. 2,

pursuant thereto cognizance has been taken vide order date 16.06.2021 under

sections 188/406/420/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the

petitioners. He further submits that now the petitioners and O.P. No. 2 have

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

that I.A. No. 4524 of 2021 has been filed, which has also been affidavited by

O.P. No. 2 and petitioner no. 1. He further submits that by way of this interlocutory application, joint compromise petition has been brought on

record, as contained in Annexure-IA/1 to the said I.A.

6. Mr. Kumar Pawan, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.

2 also accepts about the compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. Mr. Abhishek Singh, 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.

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

Annexure- Annexure-IA/1 of the said I.A., wherein it has been mentioned that

both the parties have entered into compromise. As the cognizance has been

taken under sections 188/406/420/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. Ajit

Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that all the sections

are compoundable except section 468 I.P.C. He submits that since even non-

compoundable sections, this Court can exercise its power under section 482

Cr.P.C. in a case where societal interest is not there.

9. 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.

10. 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."

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the joint

compromise petition filed by both the parties before this Court, the wife of O.P.

No. 2 was working in the school where petitioner no. 1 was secretary and now

she has retired, 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, the F.I.R. arising

out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021 and order taking cognizance dated

16.06.2021 including entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sidhgora P.S.

Case No. 23 of 2021, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,

Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed.