Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2815 of 2012
1. Mukesh Kumar
2. Jeevan Kumar [deleted]
3. Usha Devi
4. Rinku Devi ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Mamta Prabha ..... ... Opposite Parties
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Abhinay Preet, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Praaksh, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
------
07/ 04.08.2023 I.A. No. 3842 of 2023 has been filed for deleting the name of
petitioner No. 2 Jeevan Kumar, who has left for his heavenly abode on
17.04.2016 and this fact has also been admitted by Mr. Arun Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 and the death
certificate has also been annexed with the said I.A.
2. In view of the above, the prayer made in the aforementioned
I.A., is allowed and the same is disposed of.
3. Let the name of petitioner No. 2 Jeevan Kumar be deleted
from the array of the petitioner in course of the day.
4. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 19.03.2012, by
which, cognizance for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 354 of the
IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with
Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 343 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1796
of 2011, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
O.P. No. 2 has filed the case against the petitioners, who happened to be
the brother-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. He submits that due to
intervention of the well wishers and friends of the petitioners as well as
O.P. No. 2, the matter has been compromised, for which, one I.A. being
I.A. No. 3843 of 2023 has been filed jointly. He further submits that the
Probate Case No. 22 of 2016 was also compromised and the same was
allowed in faovur of petitioner No. 1. He further submits that the O.P. No.
2 does not want to proceed with the case as she happily residing at her
parental home at Jamshedpur.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 also accepts the
submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and submits
that the joint compromise has been filed in the shape of I.A. No. 3843 of
2023, in which, both the parties have put their signature and there are also
the statement in para-7 thereof that the O.P. No. 2 does not want to
proceed with the matter.
7. In view of the above and considering that the compromise has
arrived at between the parties and also there is no societal interest
involved in this case, 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.
8. 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."
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the both
the parties have compromised their case and further the petitioner No. 2
has left for his heavenly abode 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 19.03.2012, by which, cognizance for the offences
under Sections 498(A) and 354 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, in connection with Mango (MGM) P.S. Case No. 343 of
2011 corresponding to G.R. No. 1796 of 2011, pending in the court of
learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur, are hereby, quashed.
10. This criminal miscellaneous petitions stands allowed and
disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
