Bibhash Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2111 Jhar

                                       1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 2663 of 2018

Bibhash Kumar Singh                                          ......    Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Kiran Kumari                                     ...... Opposite Parties
                   ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                          ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
For the State      : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate

6/Dated: 09/06/2022

Heard A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P.

appearing for the State and Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of order

dated 24.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby bail of

the petitioner was cancelled and also quashing of order dated 07.03.2017 and

24.03.2018 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been directed to

be issued against the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Telco (Birsanagar) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2013,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2464 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned

Judical Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and both parties have compromised the

case for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner as well

as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 5281 of 2020 seeking permission to compromise the

case. He submits that as per terms and condition compromise has taken place. He

submits that petitioner has already complied the terms and conditions.

4. Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that

compromise has reached between the parties and O.P. No. 2 does not want to

proceed further with this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that as the matter has been

compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order.

6. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.,

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, 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 the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche."

7. In the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in

(2012) 10 SCC 303, 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."

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the joint compromise

petition, filed by both the parties before this Court stating that compromise has

reached between the parties, O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case, no

societal interest is involved in this case and also taking into consideration the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors.

(Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), order dated 24.11.2016 passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby bail of the petitioner was cancelled, orders

dated 07.03.2017 and 24.03.2018 whereby processes under sections 82 and 83

Cr.P.C. have been directed to be issued against the petitioner including entire

criminal proceeding in connection with Telco (Birsanagar) P.S. Case No. 282 of 2013,

corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2464 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned

Judical Magistrate, Jamshedpur, are hereby quashed.

9. Cr.M.P. No. 2663 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 5281

of 2020 also stands allowed and disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if any,

also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/