Ramanand @ Chhotu Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1806 Jhar

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1806 Jhar
Judgement Date : 5 May, 2022

Jharkhand High Court

Ramanand @ Chhotu Pathak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2022

                                               1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                              Cr.M.P. No. 2247 of 2020
                  Ramanand @ Chhotu Pathak, aged about 30 years, son of Sri Uday
                  Nath Pathak, resident of village Chiyanki Farm, P.O. Chiyanki, P.S.
                  Daltonganj Sadar, District- Palamau (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner
                                         -Versus-
             1.   The State of Jharkhand
             2.   Shashi Kumari Das, R/o Village Chiyanki, P.S. Sadar Daltonganj,
                  District Palamau                                ... Opposite Parties
                                            -----

             CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                            -----
             For the Petitioner             : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate

             For the Opposite Party-State   : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
             For Opposite Party No.2        : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
                                            -----

09/05.05.2022. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance

dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (POA) Act,

Palamau at Daltonganj, including the entire criminal proceedings of S.C./S.T.

P.S. Case No.13 of 2019 corresponding to S.C./S.T. Case No.13/2020 (G.R.

No.976 of 2020), pending in the court of the learned Special Judge,

S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Palamau at Daltonganj.

3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance

has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 504 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code read with Section Section 3(1)(w)(I) of Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He further

submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. He also

submits that the police has filed charge-sheet under Section 504 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, however the learned court has

taken cognizance under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. He further submits that now good

relationship has been developed between the parties and compromise has

been reached between the petitioner and opposite party no.2.

4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2

submits that both the parties have compromised the case. On instruction,

he submits that now opposite party no.2 is not willing to proceed in the

case and for that a joint compromise petition being I.A. No.1071 of 2022

has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no.2. He

further submits that the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have

compromised the case out of their own free and sweet will without any

pressure, coercion, compulsion or influence from any corner whatsoever.

5. Both the counsel jointly submit that the said I.A. is supported by

separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2.

6. It appears that the charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 504

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. However, the

learned court has taken cognizance under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also.

7. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case relates

to Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of

Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 along with

Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012 and in that case, the compromise

has been considered and it has been held that the extraordinary power

enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. For ready

reference, paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

8. It is well settled that where the compromise is entered into between

the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can exercise the

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the Sections are not

compoundable.

9. In view of the aforesaid compromise and upon going through the

aforesaid I.A., this Court is inclined to invoke the power conferred under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such the entire criminal proceeding so far as the

petitioner is concerned is, hereby, quashed for the reasons that must be the

occurrence involved in this petition can be categorized as purely personal or

having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature; secondly the

nature of complaint is with regard to certain altercation and thirdly the

cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected