Jharkhand High Court
Shivlal Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 254 of 2022
Shivlal Mahto ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Vincent Tudu ...... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. B.N. Ojha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
5/Dated: 22/09/2022
Heard Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
B.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the
O.P. No. 2.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire
criminal proceeding with all consequences including the F.I.R. arising out of Charhi
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020, pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge SC/ST Act, Hazaribag.
3. Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the present case has been registered under sections 323, 341, 504,
506/34 I.P.C. and under section 3(1) (X) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He submits that now with the intervention of well
wishers and common friends both the parties have compromised the case out of the
court. He submits that good sense has prevailed between the parties.
4. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 accepts
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that the matter has
been compromised between the parties for that a compromise petition has been filed
on behalf of petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 by way of I.A. No. 8279 of 2022 seeking
permission to dispose of the case in the light of compromise. The said I.A. is
supported with separate affidavit of the petitioner as well as O.P. No.2. She submits
that O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further in this case.
5. Recently the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has considered the compromise in
SC/ST Act in the case of "Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" (2021)
SCC Online SC 966 wherein para 16 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
" 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the
offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily
private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been
committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation
of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court
can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines when
considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement,
if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not
be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes
unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a „special
statute‟ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising
their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482
Cr.P.C."
6. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
such a situation the criminal proceeding can be quashed either exercising power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also
considering that the compromise has reached between the parties, O.P. No. does
not want to proceed further with this case, no societal interest is involved in this case,
the dispute is between two individual, both the parties are residing in same localities,
the O.P. No. 2 on his own will, without any compulsion, entered into compromise and
wishes to dropt the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the entire
criminal proceeding with all consequences including the F.I.R. arising out of Charhi
P.S. Case No. 95 of 2020 dated 20.11.2020, pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge SC/ST Act, Hazaribag are hereby quashed.
7. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No.8279 of 2022
stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
