Jharkhand High Court

Ajeet Ojha @ Ajit Ojha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 November, 2022

       IN     THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No. 3624 of 2022
       1. Ajeet Ojha @ Ajit Ojha
       2. Ravindra Ojha @ Ravindra Kumar Ojha
       3. Nagin Ojha @ Nageen Ojha
       4. Binay Ojha @ Binay Kumar Ojha
       5. Sagar Ojha @ Sagar Kumar Ojha
       6. Amrit Ojha
       7. Guro Devi @ Gudo Devi @ Sudha Devi
       8. Priyanka Kumari                             .....   ...   Petitioner
                                  Versus
       1. The State of Jharkhand.
       2. Shibu Ojha                                  ....      ...   Opposite Parties
                                      with
                                 Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022
      1. Sibu Ojha @ Shibhu Ojha
      2. Bisun Ojha @ Bigun Ojha @ Bigun Kumar Ojha
      3. Dhananjay Ojha @ Dhananjay Kumar Ojha
      4. Janu Kumari
      5. Reshu Kumari
      6. Lakshuman Ojha @ Lakshman Kumar Ojha @ Laxman Ojha
      7. Sanjay Kumar Ojha @ Sanjay Ojha
      8. Pappu Ojha
      9. Devanti Devi @ Dewanti Devi
      10.Madhuri Devi                                  ..... ... Petitioners
                                  Versus
      The State of Jharkhand                          .... ...        Opposite Party
                               --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate.

                               :        Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.
      For the State            :        Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
      For the O.P. No. 2       :        Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate.
                               :        Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate.
                               ------
06/ 21.11.2022     In both the cases, common question of fact and law are

involved, as such, both the cases have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. I.A. No. 9950 of 2022 [in Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022] has been filed for substituting the name of Mr. Kailash Ojha, the sole informant, by his son Amrit Ojha.

4. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022 submits that Kailash Ojha, who is informant of the case has died on 14.04.2021 that's why, it was necessitated to file I.A. No. 9950 of 2022 for substituting the name of Kailash Ojha by his son Amrit Ojha.

5. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 has got no objection.

6. In that view of the matter, the prayer made in the aforesaid I.A. is allowed and the same is disposed of as such.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022 shall make out necessary correction in the petition in course of the day.

8. Cr.M.P. No. 3624 of 2022 has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.03.2020, passed in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 327 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.

9. Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022 has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2019, passed in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 326 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag.

10. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 3624 of 2022 submits that the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 are the close relatives and there is some dispute with regard to 1.16 acres of land, for that case and counter case has been lodged by the parties against each other. He submits that now good sense has prevailed between the parties and both the parties have compromised their case and they do not want to proceed with the matter. He further submits that I.A. No. 10115 of 2022 has also been filed in the shape of compromise, in which, the separate affidavits of the persons have been filed.

11. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022 submits that I.A. No. 10114 of 2022 has also been filed in the said Cr.M.P. in the shape of compromise, in which also, the separate affidavits of the persons have also been filed.

12. Mr. Sen and Kumar, learned counsel jointly accepts the submissions of each other and jointly submit that there is case and counter case between the parties and both the parties are close relatives of each other and now they have amicably settled their dispute between the parties and they do not want to proceed any further in their respective matters.

13. Mr. B.N. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the State in both the cases submits that it is well within the domain of this Court to quash the proceeding, if the Court is satisfied that the settlement is carried out between the parties.

14. In view of the above fact and considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and looking into the compromise petitions, filed in both the petitions and both the parties are the close relatives of each other and they have amicably settled their dispute between them and no societal interest is involved in both these cases, reference may be made to the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-27 and 28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

27. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the

parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.

15. Reference may further be made to the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from

commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the settlement has arrived at between the parties and there is no societal interest involved in this case and also taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.03.2020, passed in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 327 of 2017 [in Cr.M.P. No. 3624 of 2022] and also the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.09.2019, passed in connection with Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 326 of 2017 [in Cr.M.P. No. 3638 of 2022], both the cases are pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribag, are hereby, quashed.