Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1746 Jhar

                                               1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1162 of 2017
             1.   Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of N.P. Singh
             2.   Neena Singh, Wife of Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh
                  Petitioner No.1 and 2 are residents of Sector-3, Quarter No.643,
                  Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro
             3.   Ila Singh @ Ila Sinha, Wife of Amarjeet Singh, Resident of Vastu Vihar
                  Colony, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro        ... Petitioners
                                           -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Devta Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Binod Kumar Pandey, Resident of
                  Besides K.P. Vidya Vihar School and in front of Jubilee Ground, P.O. &
                  P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar                    ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
             For the Petitioners            : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate

             For the Opposite Party-State   : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P.
             For Opposite Party No.2        : None
                                            -----

08/02.05.2022. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.

2. Nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. This petition has been filed quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.969/2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2239/2015, dated 05.11.2015 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

4. Vide order dated 10.01.2018, notices were directed to be issued upon opposite party no.2. Requisites were filed and office note suggests that opposite party no.2 has received the notice personally. On 30.03.2022, I.A. No.6380 of 2020 was the subject matter for Orders and was accordingly listed and on that day, as nobody has responded on behalf of opposite party no.2 with a view to provide one more opportunity to opposite party no.2, the matter was adjourned.

5. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.3 had died, during the pendency of this petition. He further submits that so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, she has not been sent up for trial. He also submits that charge-sheet has been submitted against petitioner no.1. He further submits that entire allegation in the complaint,

which has been subsequently registered as FIR in light of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is of civil in nature. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 is the witness of the Power of Attorney, which was executed in favour of the informant and for that the petitioner no.1 has been made an accused. He also submits that in the court below, the informant has filed the compromise petition in the court below wherein it has been stated that the informant has compromised the case with the petitioners. The said compromise petition has been annexed at Annexure-2 of the I.A. No.6380 of 2020, filed by the petitioners.

6. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted against petitioner no.1.

7. The informant has received the amount from the petitioners and thereafter he has filed compromise petition. In spite of providing opportunity to opposite party no.2, he has not not appeared in this case, which suggests that after receiving the amount in question, he is not discharging his duty as it was incumbent upon him to come before this Court as notice has been received by him and submit before this Court about the contents of the compromise, which is on the record. In the compromise petition filed in the court below, the prayer has been made to dispose of the case on the basis of the compromise.

8. In view of the above facts and considering that in spite of providing opportunity to opposite party no.2 and also looking into the contents of the compromise petition, which has been filed by none other than opposite party no.2 himself, entire facts disclosed that the nature of the complaint is of civil in nature and there is no societal interest involved in this case as it is between the petitioners and opposite party no.2. Moreover, the petitioner no.2 has not been sent up for trial and the petitioner no.3 has died and the petitioner no.1 is only the witness on Power of Attorney. It is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. particularly looking into the judgment 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. In this case, only FIR is under challenge and subsequently charge-sheet has been submitted against petitioner no.1.

In view of the compromise as well as looking into the entire allegation which is civil in nature and considering the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat & others, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 59, it appears that at any stage power can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. Accordingly, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case No.969/2015, corresponding to G.R. No.2239/2015, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar is, hereby, quashed.

10. This petition is, therefore, allowed in part and disposed of.

11. Consequently, I.A. No.6380 of 2020 stands disposed of.

12. Interim order dated 30.03.2022 stands vacated.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/