Jharkhand High Court

Dhano Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 March, 2022

                                                 1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 2006 of 2015
             1.   Dhano Devi, wife of Late Raju Ghashi
             2.   Nitu Devi, daughter of Late Raju Ghashi
             3.   Puja Kumari, daughter of Late Raju Ghashi
                  All resident of Village Pochra Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, O.P. Barkakana,
                  District- Hazaribag                               ... Petitioners
                                           -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Kumari Madhubala, wife of Anil Nayak, daughter of Late Shanti Ram
                  Ghashi, resident of G.M. Office, Sirka Colony, P.O. & P.S. Giddi, District-
                  Hazaribag                                         ... Opposite Parties
                                             -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                             -----
             For the Petitioners             : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate
             For Opposite Party No.2         : Mr. Awanish Shankar, Advocate
                                             -----

07/28.03.2022. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 10.11.2014 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag in connection with Patratu

(Barkakana) P.S. Case No.230 of 2014, dated 21.09.2014, G.R. No.3862 of

2014, T.R. No.3212 of 2015, registered under Section 498A of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the

court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.

2. A complaint case bearing Complaint Petition No.1070 of 2014 was

filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that her marriage was

solemnized with Anil Nayak on 19.11.2013 according to Hindu rites and

custom at Rajrappa Temple. At the time of marriage, the mother of the

complainant according to her capacity paid Rs.1 Lakh in cash and utensils

and jewellery amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. After marriage, the complainant

went to her matrimonial home and remained there for one week thereafter

her husband Anil Nayak after drinking wine along with these petitioners and

assaulted the complainant and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs

which was conveyed by the complainant to her mother and brother. The

mother and the brother went to the village of the accused persons and

verbal panchayati was done and assurance was given to keep the

complainant in dignified manner in which she again started living her

matrimonial house. The accused persons thereafter also continued the

atrocities of torture and demand of additional dowry. On 27.04.2014, all the

accused persons abused the complainant and the petitioners instigated the

husband of the complainant to assault on the basis of which the husband of

the complainant brutally assaulted. It was further alleged that petitioner

nos.2 and 3 snatched the jewellery and threw her from house. On

06.09.2014 again the complainant along with the witnesses went to the

matrimonial house of the complainant where the accused persons

misbehaved. It was also alleged that the accused persons on threat got

signature of the complainant on blank paper and they said on the basis of

the said signature that the husband of the complainant will get divorce and

he will remarry. The complainant went to register the case before the police

station and upon suggestion filed a complaint case before the court.

3. At the outset, Mr. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and they

have compromised the case.

4. Mr. Awanish Shankar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 also

submits that now the case has been compromised with the petitioners only.

5. They jointly submit that they have filed joint compromise petition

being I.A. No.1969 of 2022, which has been affidavited by both the parties.

They also submit that there is no societal interest involved in this petition

and the matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute and, therefore, this

petition is fit to be allowed.

6. This order is confined to only the petitioners in this case. The

husband of opposite party no.2 is not the signatory in the joint compromise

petition being I.A. No. 1969 of 2022.

7. 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-29 and 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"29. 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.

30. 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."

8. 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."

9. In view of the above facts and considering the aforesaid judgments

and also considering that this matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute

and there is no societal interest involved in this petition, the prayer made in

the petition is allowed. Accordingly, so far as the present petitioners are

concerned, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking

cognizance dated 10.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Hazaribag in connection with Patratu (Barkakana) P.S. Case No.230 of 2014,

dated 21.09.2014, G.R. No.3862 of 2014, T.R. No.3212 of 2015, pending in

the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Hazaribag, is, hereby,

quashed. The Court has not interfered so far as the husband of opposite

party no.2, namely, Anil Nayak is concerned.