Jharkhand High Court
Indal Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
Cr.M.P. No. 161 of 2022
----
Indal Singh, aged about 48 years, son of Shambhunath Singh, resident of
Ward no.9, Village Bahiyari, PO Banshidhar Nagar, P.S. Nagar Untari,
District Garhwa ..... Petitioner
-- Versus --
1.State of Jharkhand
2.Pintu Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Pawan Chero, resident of
Jangipur Tola, Dhagardiha, PO Banshidhar Nagar, PS Nagar Untari, District
Garhwa ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
----
3/09.05.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated
14.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Garhwa by
which cognizance has been taken and the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of Complaint Case No.69/2018, pending in the court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa.
The case was instituted on the complaint filed by the
O.P.No.2 against the sole accused who is the petitioner in this case
alleging that forcibly the petitioner has entered in the house of the
O.P.No.2 and he has assaulted and molested.
Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that now the good sense has been prevailed
between the parties and they have entered into compromise. He submits
that the compromise petition has been filed in the concerned court
contained in Annexure-3.
Mr. Binod Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
O.P.No.2 accepts the submission of Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner. He also contend that by way of
Annexure-3 to the petition the compromise has been entered between
the petitioner and the O.P.No.2.
On perusal of the Annexure-3 it appears that a petition has
been filed in the concerned court and it has been disclosed therein that
O.P.No.2 does not want to proceed against the petitioner. Recently, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case relating to section 3 of
the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act,
1989 and in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
in Cr.Appeal No.1489 of 2012 along with Criminal Appeal No.1488 of
2012 the compromise has been considered and it is held that the High
Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitute, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of
section 320 Cr.P.C. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:
"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."
It is well settled that if the compromise has been entered
between the parties and there is no societal interest is there, the High
Court can exercise power under section 482 Cr.P.C, even if the section is
non-compoundable.
In view of the aforesaid compromise at Annexure-3 to the
petition, this Court is inclined to invoke power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
As such, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with
Complaint Case No.69/2018, pending in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa 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 proceeding of private nature,
secondly, the nature of complaint is with regard to certain dispute and
thirdly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would
remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the
parties.
For the above reasons, analysis and in view of the
statement made in Annexure-3 to the petition, the entire criminal
proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.69/2018, pending in the
court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Garhwa is hereby quashed.
Cr.M.P. No.161 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. if any also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
