Jharkhand High Court
Kailash Modak vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2015
Kailash Modak, s/o late Bolai Modak, r/o village-Thana More,
Jhariya, PO + PS-Jhariya, District-Dhanbad. ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2. Tej Narayan Singh, s/o late Ramjanam Singh, r/o village-Hethli
Bandh, Jhariya, PO+PS - Jhariya, District-Dhanbad.
... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP
For O.P No.2 : None
---------
Order No. 10/Dated: 14th October 2022
No one appears for O.P No. 2.
2. Mr. Mukesh Bihari Lal, the learned counsel for the
petitioner referring to the order dated 16 th September 2022
submits that now further payment of Rs.10,000/- has also been
made by the petitioner through deposit in the bank account of O.P
No.2 on 11th October 2022.
3. In the affidavit dated 14th October 2022, the petitioner
has stated that he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 12 th
September 2022 and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- on 11 th October
2022 pursuant to the compromise between the parties whereunder
the petitioner has undertaken to pay Rs. 90,000/- to O.P No.2 in
installments.
4. Along with the affidavit dated 14th October 2022,
deposit slips dated 12th September 2022 and 11th October 2022
have been produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that he has
paid money in the savings bank account of O.P No. 2 with Central
Bank of India vide SB Account No. 1539636548.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to
the judgment in "Gian Singh v. State of Punjab" (2012) 10 SCC
303" to submit that the conviction and sentence awarded to the
2 Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2015
petitioner are liable to be set aside, in view of the settlement
between the parties.
6. In "Gian Singh" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:
"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender
and the victim has been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of
criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in
the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to
an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being
the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that
seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society
and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the
victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court.
In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral
turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim
can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences
which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour
having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family
dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the
offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them
amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not
been made compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding
or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of
such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender
being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.
The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be
prescribed."
7. In view of the settlement between the parties, the
judgment dated 3rd August 2012 passed in C.P Case No. 594 of
2011 as modified by the appellate order dated 27 th February 2015
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2012 is set aside.
8. Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2015 is allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
Amit/
