Jharkhand High Court

Malkit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2022

                                               1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               W.P. (Cr.) No. 123 of 2017
             1.   Malkit Singh, S/o Late Darshan Singh, Resident of H. No.162, Street
                  No.1, Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, P.S. Jamalpur, P.O. Mundiyakala,
                  Chandigarh Road, District- Ludhiana (Punjab)
             2.   Harjeet Kaur, wife of Malkit Singh, Resident of H. No.162, Street No.1,
                  Guru Tej Bahadur Nagar, P.S. Jamalpur, P.O. Mundiyakala, Chandigarh
                  Road, District- Ludhiana (Punjab)                 ... Petitioners
                                          -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Karamjit Kaur, wife of Sri Satnam Singh, Resident of H. No.44,
                  Sidhgora Bagan Area, Krishna Road No.5, P.O. AGRICO, P.O. Sidhgora,
                  Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum       ... Opposite Parties
                                           -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

             For the Petitioners     : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate
                                       Mrs. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
                                       Mr. Naveen Toppo, Advocate
                                       Mr. Shubham Chaudhary, Advocate
             For the State           : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, AC to SC-III

For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate

-----

09/10.03.2022. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal

proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No.1845/2015 including the

order taking cognizance dated 14.03.2016 whereby cognizance was taken

under Section 498A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Civil

Judge, Junior Division-IX, Jamshedpur.

2. The opposite party no.2/complainant lodged the complaint alleging

therein that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 with the son of

petitioners was solemnized on 08.03.2015 at Gurdaspur, Punjab as per

Hindu (Sikh) rites and customs. However, after marriage the opposite party

no.2 was ill treated and was continuously pressurized for dowry to the tune

of Rs.20 Lakhs. It was also alleged that the opposite party no.2 was forced

for dowry and she had to undergo various mental as well as physical

torture. It was further alleged that the father of opposite party no.2 has

spent an amount of approximately Rs.44 Lakhs in the marriage, but now

giving a further sum of Rs.20 Lakhs is virtually impossible and because of

which the opposite party no.2 had to undergo serious mental/physical

trauma at the instance of the husband as also the petitioners, who are

biological parents of her husband. It was also alleged that sometimes

around July, 2015 while the opposite party no.2 was at Jamshedpur, she

was assaulted while she was carrying the baby in the womb and because of

the physical torture, she was hospitalized and she had to abort the child.

3. Notice upon opposite party no.2 was issued. Learned counsel Mr.

Manish Kumar has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and he has

also filed Vakalatnama.

4. At the outset, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that now compromise has taken place between the

parties.

5. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on

instruction from Mr. Amrik Singh, who is father of opposite party no.2

submits that compromise has taken place and opposite party no.2 has

married with another man. He further submits that compromise is there and

in that view of the matter, this petition can be allowed by this Court.

6. Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners has

produced the affidavit of opposite party no.2 in English and Gurumukhi

language.

7. On perusal of this affidavit, it transpires that opposite party no.2 has

stated that she will withdraw the case and she has also stated that she has

decided to get divorce from the son of the petitioners namely Satnam

Singh. This case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. There is no societal

interest involved in this matter.

8. 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."

9. 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."

10. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

as well as opposite party no.2 and looking to the affidavit of opposite party

no.2, there is no societal interest involved in this case. The opposite party

no.2 has already married with another man. If allowing to continue the case

will amount to abuse of process of law.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with

Complaint Case No.1845/2015 including the order taking cognizance dated

14.03.2016, pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-