Ranjeet Kumar Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 5066 Jhar

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 2985 of 2022
                                      with
                               I.A. No. 10940 of 2022
       Ranjeet Kumar Das                             .....    ...   Petitioner
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Geeta Kumari                                  ..... ...     Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Jha, Advocate.

                                :        Mr. Kumar Nischay, Advocate.
      For the State             :        Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate.
                                ------

03/ 14.12.2022 Heard Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 75 of 2020 dated 05.08.2020, registered for the offences under Sections 186, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dumka.

3. Mr. Ashish Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of the Divyang Pension Yojna and on that background, the FIR has been registered. He submits that no ingredients of SC/ST Act has been attracted against the petitioner, however, the case has been registered under that Act also. He further submits that now the case has been amicably settled between the parties. He further submits that I.A. No. 10940 of 2022 has been filed in the shape of joint compromise, in which, both the parties have filed their separate affidavit.

4. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that in misconception, the case has been lodged and now the compromise has taken place between the parties. He submits that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the matter and if the proceedings may be quashed, he has no objection in that regard.

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. In view of the aforesaid compromise and upon going through the aforesaid I.A., this Court is inclined to invoke the power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such the entire criminal proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned 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 petitioner and thirdly the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

8. For the above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings, in connection with Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 75 of 2020 dated 05.08.2020, registered for the offences under Sections 186, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the

court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Dumka, is hereby, quashed.

9. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. The aforesaid I.A. also stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-