Jharkhand High Court
Harshita Saraf vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2157 of 2021
Harshita Saraf, aged about 53 years, wife of Ramesh Chandra Saraf,
resident of Jora Phatak Road, Opposite Patliputra Nursing Home, P.O.
& P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Asha Saraf, wife of Late Purshottam Saraf, resident of Jora Phatak
Road, Opposite Patliputra Nursing Home, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District-
Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
With
Cr.M.P. No. 2812 of 2021
Ramesh Chandra Saraf, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Rukmanand
Saraf, resident of Jora Phatak Road, Opposite Patliputra Nursing
Home, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District- Dhanbad ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Asha Saraf, wife of Late Purshottam Saraf, resident of Jora Phatak
Road, Opposite Patliputra Nursing Home, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, District-
Dhanbad ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate (In both cases)
For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate (In both cases)
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. (In Cr.M.P.-2812/2021)
-----
11/29.07.2022. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr.
Rajneesh Vardhan, learned counsel for the State.
2. These petitions are arising out of common FIR and that is why both
the petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.
3. These petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal
prosecution including First Information Report in connection with Dhansar
P.S. Case No.132 of 2021 registered under Sections 406, 420, 379, 467,
468, 469, 471, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the
court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
4. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the case is arising out of family dispute for
selling out certain land of the joint property and for that the case has been
lodged. He further submits that now the partition has been occurred with
family members, which has been brought on record by way of filing
supplementary affidavit and now the matter has been resolved between the
parties.
5. Ms. Anushka Sharma, learned counsel appearing for opposite
party no.2 also accepts the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and submits that the compromise has been entered
into and the disputed has been sorted out. She further submits
that opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the criminal
prosecution.
6. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the contents of the FIR, it
transpires that for selling of certain joint property by one of the family
members, the FIR has been lodged and subsequently partition has occurred
between the family members, which has been brought on record by way of
filing supplementary affidavit. There is no societal interest. There is a
dispute between two individuals and considering the judgments rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of
Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466, these are fit cases to exercise power under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of the above facts, the entire criminal prosecution including
First Information Report in connection with Dhansar P.S. Case No.132 of
2021, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed.
8. Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed and disposed of.
9. Interim order dated 15.02.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2157 of 2021
and interim order dated 07.03.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. No.2812 of 2021
stand vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
