Jharkhand High Court
Ramanujan Kumar Singh @ Ramanuj ... vs The State Of Jhrakhand on 5 April, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2508 of 2018
----
Ramanujan Kumar Singh @ Ramanuj Kumar Singh, son of late Bhim
Singh, aged about 32 years, resident of Subhash Colony, Near Almira
Factory, PO and PS Mango, District East Sinbhbhum
..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jhrakhand
2.Khushboo Kumari, daughter of late Nirmal Kumar Mukhi, resident of
Kadma Water Area, PO & PS Kadma, District East Sinbhghum
...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. L.C.N.Shahdeo, Advocate
----
6/05.04.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Mahila P.S.Case No.10 of 2017, corresponding
to G.R.No.805 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated
30.10.2017.
The F.I.R. was lodged by O.P.No.2 alleging therein that the
informant and Ramu @ Ramanujan Kumar Singh are well known to each
other and there was love affair between them. The said accused
petitioner Rama @ Ramanujan Kumar Singh is employed in the police
department and now he is posted at Anti Corruption Bureau as Computer
Operator. It is alleged that the accused on the promises of marriage and
by inducing her took her to police quarter at Sidhgora and forcibly made
physical relation with her. Thereafter he took her to Sidhgora Surya
Mandir and solemnized marriage with her and promised her that he
would never leave her. On the said promise she has been residing with
him for the last seven years. The accused used to make physical relations
with her frequently by taking her to Chatra, Puri and even in his house in
absence of his mother. During the course she became pregnant in the
year 2016 and she wanted to give birth to the said child but the accused
took her to Apex Hospital and admitted her on 30.04.2016 and got
aborted her pregnancy. She used to insist him to marry her but he used
to delay the matter on one pretext or another. On 02.02.2017 she came
to know that Ramu @ Rajanujan Kumar Singh has solemnized marriage
with some other girl and when she wanted to talk him then he abused
her telling that 'she is harizan (ghashi), neech and chor jati' and hence
he would never marry her. She tried to contact him on phone but he
started abusing her.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order
dated 30.10.2017 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner
under various sections of I.P.C including section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Mr. Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at
the outset submits that a good sense has prevailed between the parties
and compromise has been entered into between both the sides. He
submits that the entire allegation is of non-performing of marriage and
the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 were major and what has happened that
was with consent of the petitioner and the O.P.No.2.
Mr. L.C.N. Shahdeo, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2
has also accepted that the compromise has been taken place between
the petitioner as well as O.P.No.2 and the I.A. has been filed for the
same. He submits that the said I.A. is supported by the affidavits of
O.P.No.2 as well as the petitioner.
In view of the above fact and considering that the petitioner
and the O.P.No.2 were major and what has happened that was with
consent of the petitioner and the O.P.No.2, there is no societal interest
involved in this petition and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and " Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court can interfere
under section 482 Cr.P.C in this petition. So far as the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned although
it is not compoundable, in the light of the observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.19 in the case of "Ram Gopal
and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh" [Cr.Appeal No.489 of 2020], this
Court can exercise power. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:
"19. We thus sum−up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences compoundable within the
statutory framework, the extra−ordinary power enjoined upon a High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect
of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the
injury, if any; (iii) luntary nature of compromise between the accused
and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and
after the occurrence of the purported offence and/orother relevant
considerations."
In view of the aforesaid compromise and upon going
through the I.A. No.2217 of 2021, this Court is inclined to invoke the
power conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. as such for the reason that
there must be firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in the petition can be
categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of
private nature; secondly, the nature of allegation with regard to physical
relationship as both are major and thirdly, for the administration of
criminal justice system and in presence of amicable settlement between
the parties and for the above reasons and analysis as also in view of the
statement made in the said I.A., this Court is inclined to interfere and
exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C as such, the entire criminal
proceeding, so far as the petitioner is concerned, arising out of Mahila
P.S.Case No.10 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.No.805 of 2017 including
the order taking cognizance dated 30.10.2017, pending in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are hereby quashed.
Cr.M.P. No. 2508 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No.2217 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
