Jharkhand High Court
Abhishek Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1999 of 2022
Abhishek Prasad ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Garima Sahu ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate
4/Dated: 17/10/2022
Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu
Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Panakaj Verma, learned counsel
for the O.P. No. 2.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire
criminal proceeding including F.I.R. being Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018,
corresponding to G.R. Case No. 37 of 2018, dated 11.01.2018 registered under
sections 498A/34 I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the present case is arising out of matrimonial dispute lodged under section 498A/34
I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He further submits that now the dispute has
been settled between the parties and it has been decided that petitioner and O.P. No.
2 will reside separately. He submits that a petition under section 13(B) of the Hindu
Marriage Act has been filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lohardaga in Original Suit No. 03 of 2022. He submits that it has been decided that
Rs. 12,50,000/- shall be paid to the O.P. No. 2 by the petitioner. He submits that Rs.
8,00,000/- has already been paid to the O.P. No. 2 and rest amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-
shall be paid on the date of final decree in original suit in terms of compromise.
4. Mr. Pankaj Verma, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that O.P. No. 2 has
received Rs. 8,50,000/- and rest amount will be paid to her after final decree in
original suit. He submits that mutual divorce petition has been filed under section
13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act. He submits that the matter has been compromised
between the parties for that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of
petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 8057 of 2022 seeking permission
to compromise the case. The said I.A. is supported with separate affidavit of the
petitioner as well as O.P. No.2. He submits that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed
further in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that this is a case of
matrimonial dispute and as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass
appropriate order.
6. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, 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."
7. In the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, 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."
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the joint compromise
petition filed by both the parties before this Court stating that compromise has
reached between the parties, O.P. No. 2 has received Rs. 8,00,000/-, mutual divorce
has been filed, the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case, no societal
interest is 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 F.I.R. being Lohardaga
Mahila P.S. Case No. 02 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 37 of 2018, dated
11.01.2018 registered under sections 498A/34 I.P.C. and under section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lohardaga, are hereby quashed.
9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No.8057 of 2022 also
stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
