Jharkhand High Court
Shankunath Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2207 of 2021
Shankunath Mandal, aged about 37 years, son of Shambhu Nath
Mandal, resident of A/6 Dream Villa Panda Sahi Mauza, P.O. & P.S.
Barang, District- Cuttak (Odisha) ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Minakshi Mandal, W/o Shankunath Mandal, D/o Narhari Das, resident
of Vivek Nagar Gua, P.O. & P.S. Gua, District- Singhbhum (West)
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Lochan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Shankar Singh, Advocate
-----
08/12.05.2022. Heard Mr. B.R. Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shankar Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 24.09.2020 passed
by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R.
Case No.444/2020 (Kiriburu Mahila P.S. Case No.01/2020), pending in the
court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa.
3. The opposite party no.2 Minakshi Mandal has lodged complaint
against the petitioner and cognizance has been taken under Section
494/498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the petitioner.
4. Mr. B.R. Lochan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that compromise has been entered between the parties. He further submits
that in terms of the compromise, the petitioner has already paid sum of
Rs.10 Lakhs to opposite party no.2. He also submits that the bank draft of
Rs.15 Lakhs is ready in the hand of the petitioner, who is present in the
Court. He further submits that in terms of the compromise, the remaining
amount of Rs.5 Lakhs shall be paid to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner
after decree of divorce.
5. Mr. Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2
accepts the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and on instruction submits that the opposite party no.2 has already received
the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs. He further submits that opposite party no.2 is
also present in the Court in person and she is ready to accept the bank draft
of Rs.15 Lakhs.
6. Mr. Shankar Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2
has identified the opposite party no.2, who is present in the Court.
7. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 are present in the Court in
person and they have accepted the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as opposite party no.2.
8. The photo copy of bank draft of Rs.15 Lakhs bearing no.001122,
dated 25.03.2022 has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit, filed
on behalf of the petitioner dated 31.03.2022. The bank draft of Rs.15 Lakhs
has been handed over to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner in presence
of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and since the petition is arising out of
matrimonial dispute and there is no societal interest and in terms of the
compromise, the agreement has been fulfilled, to allow this matter to
continue will amount to abuse of process of law.
10. In that view of the matter and considering the judgments passed 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, it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 24.09.2020 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Sadar, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No.444/2020 (Kiriburu Mahila P.S.
Case No.01/2020), pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Sadar at Chaibasa is, hereby, quashed.
11 Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
