Jharkhand High Court
Shekhar Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 2630 of 2021
----
1.Shekhar Kumar, aged about 47 years, s/o Nageshwar Ram, r/o Shadipur,
Gola Road, PO and PS and District: Munger (Bihar)
2.Pankaj Ramani, aged about 35 years, s/o late Ramu Ramani, both r/o
Vill. Barharwa, Naya Bazar, PO and PS Barharwa, District -Sahibganj
(Jharkhand) ..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Laxmi Paharin, w/o Shankar Ramani, r/o Vill. Barharwa, Naya Bazar, PO
and PS Barharwa, District Sahibganj (Jharkhand) ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. R. Pandey, Advocate
----
5/06.01.2022 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.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire
criminal proceeding as well as FIR of S.B.G (S.C./S.T) Case No.08 of
2020, pending in the court of Addl.Sessions Judge-1st (Special Judge of
S.C./S.T.) Sahibganj.
3. The prosecution case has been filed stating therein that, the
prosecution case is based on an application given by the O.P.No.2 to the
officer incharge of SC/ST police station Sahibganj, wherein it is alleged by
the O.P.no.2 that, the O.P.No.2 has got married with one Shankar
Ramani, brother of the petitioner No.2 twelve years ago. The petitioner
no.2 is brother in law and the appellant no.1 is Nandosi of the O.P. No.2.
They have making atrocities since her marriage. They were directing
Shankar Ramani to leave Adivasi Paharin girl. Shankar Ramani resides at
Pakur with his wife. ON 25.03.2018, the O.P.No.2 and her husband came
Barharwa for partition of the land of Baneshwar Ramani. On 25.03.2018
at about 07.00 P.M. when the house of the O.P.No.2 asked for his share in
partition then they abused the O.P.No.2 that you belong to schedule tribe
who called you here and they assaulted Shankar Ramani. The O.P.No.2
and her husband gave a written petition to the officer in charge Barharwa
P.S. but nothing has been done by the officer in charge of Barharwa P.S.
on 26.04.2018, the husband of the O.P.no.2 and she came Barharwa for
correction in Ration card. On telephone the accused abused and directed
the accused to kill the Adivasi Paharin, who demands partition. The
petitioner abused the O.P.no.2 being indicate her cast name. Both the
appellants have assaulted her by lathi and they torn the blouse of the
O.P.No.2 and the petitioner snatched a Garland of three bharies of silver
worth Rs.1500/-.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to
indulgence of the well-wishers as well as O.P.No.2 a compromise has
been arrieved at between the parties which has been filed before the
concerned court and which is Annexure-2 in this petition. He submits that
in view of this compromise petition between the parties which was due to
intervention of the eminent persons of the village, he submits that in
view of this compromise this Court is empowered to quash the entire
criminal proceeding including the F.I.R.
5. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of
the O.P.No.2 and he also supports that contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner. He submits that there is a compromise which is
annexure-2 to the petition and in view of the compromise this Court may
interfere and quash the entire proceeding.
6. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel for the respondent
State submits that on the basis of compromise, if there is no societal
interest involved this Court is empowered to quash the proceeding.
7. In view of the above fact and considering the submission of
the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that there is no
societal interest involved in this FIR and it is between the petitioner and
the O.P.No.2, this Court can exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC.
A reference may be made to the case of "Narinder Singh & Others v.
State of Punjab & Another", reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising
inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding involving non-
compoundable offence in view of compromise which has been arrived
between the parties as held in paragraph no.29(2) and paragraph 29(5)
of the said judgment, is as under:
"29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement
and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the quiding factor in such cases would
be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court
While exercising the power the High Court is
to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two
objectives.
xxx xxx xxx
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is
to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases."
8. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
compromise matter. The case arising out of SC/ST Act. In the case of
"Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh" [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of
2011] wherein at paragraph no.16, it has been observed as follows:
"16. On the other hand, where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question, although covered
under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature,
or where the alleged offence has not been committed on
account of the caste of the victim, or where the
continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse
of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to
quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering
a prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the
underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened
or diminished even if the felony in question goes
unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered
under a special statute would not refrain this Court or the
High Court, from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of "Narinder Singh & Others v. State
of Punjab & Another" and "Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh"
(supra), the entire criminal proceeding arising out of FIR of S.B.G
(S.C./S.T) Case No.08 of 2020, pending in the court of Addl.Sessions
Judge-1st (Special Judge of S.C./S.T.) Sahibganj is hereby quashed.
10. Cr.M.P. No.2630 of 2021 stands allowed.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J)
SI/
