Jharkhand High Court
Vinay Singh @ Karapu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3443 of 2017
with
I.A. No. 5425 of 2022
1. Vinay Singh @ Karapu
@ Vinay Kumar Singh
2. Ravi Singh @ Sanni
3. Soni Kumari
4. Rajeshwari Devi ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Lalit Rajak ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate.
------
11/ 28.06.2022 Heard Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. Veer Vijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State
and Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking
cognizance dated 31.08.2015 including the entire criminal proceeding, in
connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 58 of 2014 corresponding
to G.R. No. 525 of 2014 [SC/ST Case No. 03 of 2016], pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge, Bokaro.
3. Mr. Rishi Pallava, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the cognizance for the offences under Sections
448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been taken against the petitioners. He submits
that during the pendency of this petition, good sense has prevailed
between the parties and both the parties have compromised their case. He
further submits that the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 are the residents of
the same locality and due to some dispute, the present case has been filed,
which has now been settled by way of compromise between them.
4. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.
No. 2 also accepts the submission of Mr. Pallava, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners. He submits that I.A. has been filed, which is
supported by separate affidavit of O.P. No. 2 and these petitioners. He
further submits that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed in the matter.
5. It is settled law that even the Sections are not compoundable
and no societal interest is involved and the dispute has been
settled between the parties, the Court can exercise the power, under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of
"Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another", reported in
(2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising the 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."
6. 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."
7. 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 order taking cognizance dated 31.08.2015 including the entire
criminal proceeding, in connection with Bokaro Thermal P.S. Case No. 58
of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 525 of 2014 [SC/ST Case No. 03 of
2016], pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bokaro, are hereby,
quashed.
8. This petition is allowed and disposed of. The aforesaid
interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
9. Interim order, granted earlier stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
