Jharkhand High Court

S.M. Taslim Arif @ Bullet vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2022

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 610 of 2018
                                       with
                                 I.A. No. 3659 of 2021
       S.M. Taslim Arif @ Bullet                       .....   ...      Petitioner
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Fatema Bibi @ Fatema Bewa                     ..... ...     Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha, Advocate.

      For the State             :        Mr. Vibhuti Sahay, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2        :        Mr. Jawed Sultan, Advocate.
                                ------

05/ 21.07.2022 Heard Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vibhuti Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Jawed Sultan, A.C. to Mr. Asadul Haque, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2018, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 / 120(B) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 214 of 2017 / CC No. 214/2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

3. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of a civil dispute and a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- has already been returned to the O.P. No. 2 and both the parties have reached to a compromise and to that effect I.A. No. 3659 of 2021 has been filed.

4. Mr. Jawed Sultan, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the compromise has reached between the parties and the amount in question has already been received by the O.P. No. 2. He submits that payment was made pursuant to the order passed in A.B.A. by this Court and this fact has also been recorded in the trial court order dated 18.08.2018, which is annexed with the aforesaid I.A. He further submits O.P. No. 2 is not willing to proceed further in the case.

5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties that the compromise has entered into between the parties and amount in question has already been returned to the O.P. No. 2 and the dispute is also between two individuals and no societal interest is involved in this case, reference may be made to the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab &

Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-27 and 28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any

question of accepting compromise and acquitting theaccused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.

6. Reference may further be made to the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its

view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

7. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties that the compromise has entered into between the parties and amount in question has already been returned to the O.P. No. 2 and the dispute is also between two individuals and no societal interest is involved in this case and also considering the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the order taking cognizance dated 03.01.2018, whereby cognizance for the offence under Sections 420 / 120(B) / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act, has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 214 of 2017 / CC No. 214/2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, is hereby, quashed.