Jharkhand High Court
Tribhuwan Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3612 of 2022
----
1.Tribhuwan Prasad, son of Sri Gokul Saw, aged about 45 years
2.Anil Prasad, son of late Deo Narayan Prasad, aged about 55 years
3.Chatradhari Saw, son of late Thanu Saw, aged about 81 years
4.Sanjay Prasad, son of late Ayodhya Prasad, aged about 57 years
5.Umesh Prasad, son of late Rameshwar Prasad, aged about 77 years
6.Prem Prasad @ Prem Kumar, son of Sri Sarwan Prasad, aged about 44
years
7.Pankaj Saha @ Pankaj Kumar, son of Sri Sawna Prasad, aged about 37
years
8.Arghu Saw, son of late Jhaman Saw, aged about 65 years
9.Rupchand Prasad, son of late Ramchandra Saw, aged about 62 years
10.Bir Mohan Saw @ Birmohan Prasad, son of late Fidak Saw, aged about
68 years
11.Raghunath Prasad, son of late Chatradhari Saw, aged about 54 years
12.Sanjay Prasad, son of Sri Harjiwan Saw, aged about 41 years
13.Ashok Prasad, son of late Jhaman Saw, aged 59 years
All residents of Village-Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, O.P.West Bokaro
(Ghato tand), P.O. and P.S. Mandu, District Ramgarh (Jharkhand)
..... Petitioners
-- Versus --
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Basanti Devi, wife of Ledu Chamar @ Ledu Ram, resident of Village-
Badgaon, P.S. Mandu (O.P.West Bokaro, Ghato Tand), P.O.Mandu, District-
Ramgarh ...... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State :- Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate
----
03/ 03.11.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated
21.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum
Special Judge (SC/ST), Ramgarh including the entire criminal proceeding
arising out of SC/ST Complaint Case No.599 of 2017, pending in that
learned court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the case has been filed by the O.P.No.2 and looking to that
plot in question was settled in her name, however, the Panchayati was
held and subsequently proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C has been
initiated and was dropped. He further submits that now a good sense has
prevailed between the parties and both the parties have compromised
the issue and they have filed I.A. No.9732 of 2022.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the O.P.no.2 submits that on misconception the case has been lodged
against the petitioners under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and he further submits that now a good sense has prevailed
between both the parties and compromise has been taken place and for
that the I.A has been filed and the said I.A petition is supported with
separate affidavit on both sides. He further submits that this Court may
quash the entire criminal proceeding in this case.
Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent State submits that it appears from the said I.A
petition that compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
In view of the above facts and the submissions of the
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that both
the parties have compromised the issue. Recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court has considered the case relating to section 3(i)(s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V.
The State of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of
2022 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 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 the criminal proceeding, 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; and (iv0
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 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.
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 petitioners are 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 the land 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 facts and reasons, analysis and in view of the
statements made in paragraph nos.3 to 9 of the aforesaid I.A., the order
dated 21.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-
cum Special Judge (SC/ST), Ramgarh, including the entire criminal
proceeding, arising out of SC/ST Complaint Case No.599 of 2017,
pending in that learned court is hereby quashed.
Cr.M.P.No.3612 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.
I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
