Jharkhand High Court
Ram Pramod Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 December, 2022
1 Cr.M.P. No. 4278 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 4278 of 2022
Ram Pramod Singh, aged about 52 years, Son of Rajendra Singh,
resident of Saraidhela Tola, Nutandih, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S.
Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Bimla Hadin @ Bimla Hardin @ Vimla Harin, aged about 65 years,
daughter of Late Karmu Hadi, resident of Kola Kusma, P.O. K.G.
Ashram, P.S. Saraidhela, Dist. Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, S.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
-----
02/16.12.2022. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2016 passed
in connection with C.P. Case No.2237 of 2016, corresponding to SC/ST Case
No.232/2018, pending in the court of the learned ADJ-VI cum Spl. Judge
(SC/ST) at Dhanbad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2
filed a false case against the petitioner for dispute of land under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He
further submits that now good sense has prevailed between the parties and
now the matter has been compromised and for that I.A. No.11184 of 2022
has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that compromise has
taken place between the parties and for that the said I.A. has been filed,
which has been supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as
opposite party no.2. He further submits that opposite party no.2 does not
want to proceed with the case.
4. 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 herein below:-
"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."
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and also
considering statements made in the said I.A., the entire criminal proceeding
including the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2016 passed in
connection with C.P. Case No.2237 of 2016, corresponding to SC/ST Case
No.232/2018, pending in the court of the learned ADJ-VI cum Spl. Judge
(SC/ST) at Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
9. Consequently, I.A. No.11184 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
