Jharkhand High Court
Bittu Kumar Sharma @ Bittu Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 December, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2466 of 2022
----
1.Bittu Kumar Sharma @ Bittu Sharma, aged about 24 years, son of Dilip
Thakur, resident of Village Maraiya, P.O. Gaura Laxmipur, P.S. Laxmipur,
District Jamui (Bihar) at present residing near Shiv Mandir, Nirsa Kanta,
P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad
2.Dilip Sharma @ Dilip Thakur, aged about 55 years, son of Govind
Sharma, resident of Nirsa Kanta, Birsinghpur, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District
Dhanbad
3.Pankaj Kumar Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma, aged about 38 years, son of
Dilip Thakur, resident of near Shiv Mandir, Gopinathour Colony,
Birsinghpur, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad
4.Guddu Kumar Sharma @ Guddu Sharma, aged 36 years, son of Dilip
Thakur, resident of Nirsa, Kanta, Birsinghpur, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District
Dhanbad ............... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Fulmani Devi, wife of Sri Kali Manjhi, resident of Village Kanchandih,
Kalimata Colony, P.O. and P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad ...Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Jitendra S.Singh, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
----
5/13.12.2022 Heard Mr. Jitendra S.Singh, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mrs.Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent State and Mr. Vinay Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.
This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceedings as well as order taking cognizance dated
10.03.2017 passed in C.P.Case No.2342 of 2016 for the offence alleged
under sections 323, 341, 406, 379/34 of the IPC read with section 3(i)(x)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned A.D.J.-VI-cum-Special Judge
(SC/ST) Act, at Dhanbad.
Mr. Jitendra S.Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the matter is arising out of deposition of
Rs.10,000/- with one Sahara India and thereafter dispute arises and
unnecessarily sections of Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been added. He submits that now a good sense
is prevailing between the parties and the O.P.no.2 has settled the dispute
with the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the
O.P.no.2 has received the money and he does not want to proceed with
the case.
In view of the submission of the learned counsels appearing
for the parties prima-facie it appears that for recovery of the money the
case has been filed and unnecessarily section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has
been added and cognizance has been taken. Recently the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court has considered the case relates to Section 3 of the
Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act,
1989, in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Versus The State of Madhya
Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 along with Criminal Appeal
No. 1488 of 2012 and in that case, the compromise has been considered
and it has been held that the extraordinary 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. For ready reference, para-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 extraordinary 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) Voluntary 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/or other relevant considerations."
It is well settled that where the compromise is entered into
between the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can
exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the Sections are not
compoundable.
In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel
for the parties and considering that the compromise has been taken
place, the Court is inclined to interfere with the matter under section 482
Cr.P.C and as such, entire criminal proceedings so far as the petitioners
are concerned in connection with C.P.Case No.2342 of 2016, pending in
the court of learned A.D.J.-VI-cum-Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, at
Dhanbad, is hereby, quashed for the reasons that must be the
occurrence involved in this petition can be categorized as purely personal
or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; secondly
the nature of complaint is with regard to certain money recovered from
the petitioners; and thirdly the cause of administration of criminal justice
system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable
settlement between the parties.
Cr.M.P. No.2466 of 2022 stands disposed of.
Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
