Prashant Kumar Mandilwar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1252 Jhar

                                        1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr.M.P. No. 3148 of 2017

   Prashant Kumar Mandilwar                       ...... Petitioner
                           Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2. Bharti                                   ...... Opposite Parties
                   ---------

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
                          ---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State      : Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate

08/Dated: 22/03/2023

Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for

the O.P. No. 2.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire

criminal proceeding including order dated 23.10.2017 passed in connection with

Madhuban P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1810 of 2016 by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih whereby the learned court has been pleased

to allow the prayer made by the Investigating Officer of the present case under

section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Giridih.

3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that there was relation between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and

subsequently, the O.P. No. 2 solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 11.01.2016

and further it transpired that the informant is already married earlier and she has filed

maintenance case against the person with whom she was married earlier. He further

submits that another case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 in Indore against the petitioner,

for the same allegation in which the petitioner has been acquitted and judgment has

been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. He further submits that

the compromise has reached between the parties.

4. Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2

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. 2719 of 2023 seeking permission to compromise the case. The said

I.A. is supported with separate affidavit of the petitioners 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 since the compromise

is there, 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, I.A. is affidavited by the petitioner and O.P. No. 2, the

O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case, the petitioner has been acquitted

in another case, no societal interest is involved in this case, the dispute is between

two individual 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 order dated 23.10.2017 passed in connection

with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 13 of 2016, corresponding to G.R. No. 1810 of 2016,

pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, are hereby quashed.

9. This petition stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. No.2719 of 2023 also

stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/