Jharkhand High Court
Bibhuti Mandal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1384 of 2014
Bibhuti Mandal ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Abdul Wahid ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Prasad Ram, Advocate
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.
-----
16/03.02.2023 Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Ms. Nehala
Sharmin, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire
criminal proceedings in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No.65 of
2013, dated 23.05.2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.458 of 2013,
instituted under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 471, 468 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.209 of 2013 including the order
taking cognizance dated 10.05.2016, pending in the court of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara.
3. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer
and he was assigned with some movement work and it has been alleged
that forgery has been committed and aggrieved with that, the complainant
has filed complaint case which was sent to the police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. He further submits that the complainant has filed withdrawal petition
before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamtara on
23.05.2013 with prayer to withdraw the case and the same was accepted by
the learned court vide order dated 05.06.2013 and a copy thereof was
forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Narayanpur Police Station to ends of
justice, but the said withdrawal petition is still pending after passing of that
order. He also submits that now good sense has prevailed between the
parties and compromise has reached between the parties and therefore,
I.A. No.2117 of 2022 has been filed. He further submits that there is no
public policy involved in this matter and on the basis of the said I.A., entire
criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.
4. Mr. Kaushik Sarekhel, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits
that on the heat of moment that F.I.R. was lodged and now compromise
has reached between the parties. He also accepted the submission of Mr.
Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that
joint compromise petition has been filed being I.A. No.2117 of 2022, which
has been jointly affidavited. He also submits that the complainant does not
want to proceed with the case.
5. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that I.A. is
there and it is for the Court to consider whether the same is required to be
entertained or not.
6. In view of the above submissions, the Court has gone through the
materials on the record especially contained in the said I.A. and finds that
compromise has reached between the parties and considering that there is
no societal interest involved in the matter and also onsidering the
judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab & another; [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and in Narinder Singh &
others v. State of Punjab & another; [(2014) 6 SCC 466 , the F.I.R.
and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case
No.65 of 2013, dated 23.05.2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No.458 of
2013, arising out of P.C.R. Case No.209 of 2013 including the order taking
cognizance dated 10.05.2016, pending in the court of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara is, hereby, quashed.
7. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
8. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
