Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 130 of 2022
Mukesh Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Vijay Prasad Mathuri @
Baro, resident of Village Mahugae, P.O. & P.S. Sono, District- Jamui
(Bihar) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ekta Kumari, daughter of Prem Prasad Mathuri, wife of Mukesh Kumar,
resident of Bompass Town, Ward Number 35, Dulampur, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar Town, District- Deoghar ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
-----
04/06.05.2022. Heard Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of
the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due
to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any
technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been
heard.
3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.216 of 2020, corresponding to POCSO Case
No.17 of 2020, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Deoghar.
4. Mr. Ankit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case was registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner. He
further submits that subsequently compromise has been entered between
the parties and the petitioner and opposite party no.2 had solemnized their
marriage and they are living conjugal life happily.
5. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that
the petitioner and opposite party no.2 had solemnized their marriage on
25.09.2020 in presence of father and mother of the informant and they are
living happy conjugal life at RBI-136B East Railway Colony, Mathura
Junction, Uttar Pradesh, which is the work place of the petitioner.
6. Both the counsel jointly submit that I.A. No.2783 of 2022 has been
filed for joint compromise, which is supported by the affidavits of the
petitioner as well as opposite party no.2.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mahatta
v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706 has held that
inherent power of the High Court to quash the proceeding can be exercised
even after the charge-sheet has been filed. Paragraph 16 of the said
judgment is quoted herein below:
"16. There is nothing in the words of this section which
restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the
abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the
stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High
Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even
when the discharge application is pending with the trial court.
Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings
initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage
of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have
materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be
said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands
aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet
after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to
prevent abuse of process of power of any court."
8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties
and looking to the statements made in the I.A. particularly paragraph 3,
wherein, it has been disclosed that the petitioner and opposite party no.2
had solemnized their marriage and they are living happy conjugal life at
Mathura, it appears that there is no societal interest involved in this case.
The compromise has been entered between the parties and now they are
living happily.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.216 of 2020, corresponding to POCSO Case
No.17 of 2020, pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Deoghar is, hereby, quashed.
10. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
11. Consequently, I.A. No.2783 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
