Praveer Kumar Pradhan @ Prabir Kr. ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 4114 Jhar

                                                            Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.3338 of 2023
                                        ------

Praveer Kumar Pradhan @ Prabir Kr. Pradhan, Aged 51 years, S/o Vats Pradhan; R/O Gopal Prasad Meglia, Talchar, P.O. & P.S.- Gopal Prasad & District- Angul (Orissa) ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Shivraj Baraik, Son of Motiram Baraik; R/O Kereya Pahantoli, P.O. + P.S. - T. Tangar & District - Simdega ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner           : Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Advocate
                                            Mr. Jaydeep Pal, Advocate
                                            Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate
                                            Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate
             For the State                : Ms. Lily Sahay, Addl. P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2            : Mr. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate
                                            ------
                                       PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the

entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with T. Tangar P.S.

Case No.38 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 401 of 2023 and also to quash

the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned C.J.M.,

Simdega as well as to quash the further proceedings of the said case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the

Interlocutory Application No.9942 of 2023 which is supported by separate

affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 and

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

submits that therein it has been mentioned that due to intervention of well-

wishers and friends, compromise has taken place between the parties and

presently no dispute is existing between them. It is next jointly submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite

party No.2 that the informant is the owner of a dumper and while the

informant along with driver was going in the said dumper, the petitioner who

was travelling in a Innova vehicle with the co-accused persons, overtook him

and there was a heated exchange of words between them regarding the

overtaking and at the heat of the moment, the case was instituted. It is further

jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in fact, no offence of robbery has been

committed and the non-occurrence of the offence of robbery; has been found by

the police after due investigation of the case. Drawing attention of this Court to

Annexure-2 at page Nos.21-28 of the brief, it is submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that police after due investigation of the case, has

submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the

offences punishable under Sections 419, 506, 385, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal

Code only but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without any application of

mind and without any speaking order has differed from the Final Form

submitted by the police and has taken cognizance for the offence punishable

under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code as well. It is then jointly submitted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite

party No.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant

does not want to proceed with the criminal case; hence the chance of conviction

of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further jointly submitted by the

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite

party no.2 that no public policy is involved in the case and the occurrence is a

private dispute between the parties.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of

Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the

High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the

basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph No.11 as

under:-

"11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) "61. ... 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

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

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." (Emphasis supplied)"

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Others vs.

Radhika & Another reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705, wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India dealt with the considerations to be made by High

Court for deciding whether or not; a prosecution be permitted to continue or be

quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

& Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, paragraph No. 61 of which reads as

under:-

"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." (Emphasis supplied)

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs.

State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of

which read as under:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." (Emphasis supplied)

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect also relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Sharma vs.

State & Others reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1 and the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

Investigation & Another reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677 as well as the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others vs. State

of Haryana & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 as also the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramgopal & Ors. vs. The State

of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal Nos.1489 and 1488 of 2012 dated

29.09.2021.

9. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the

FIR in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.38 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.

No.401 of 2023, order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned

C.J.M., Simdega as also any further proceedings of the said case be quashed

and set aside.

10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the

other hand opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding

including the FIR in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.38 of 2023

corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2023, order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023

passed by the learned C.J.M., Simdega as also the further proceedings of the

said case and submits that the only difference between dacoity and robbery is

the involvement of number of accused persons and as the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 392

of Indian Penal Code, hence, trial is required. Hence, it is submitted that this

criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials available in the record, the undisputed fact remains that

the occurrence took place consequent upon the overtaking of the vehicle of the

informant by the petitioner and the co-accused persons. The undisputed fact

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

also remains that the parties have compromised the case and the informant

does not want to proceed with the case. There is no one else other than the

informant and the driver of the vehicle who were the eye-witnesses to the

alleged occurrence and without their support, the chance of conviction of the

petitioner is obviously remote and bleak.

12. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are

not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity rather

the same relates to private dispute between the parties and the genesis of the

occurrence is overtaking of the vehicle of the informant by the petitioners in a

rash manner.

13. Because of the complete voluntary settlement between the offender and

the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak

and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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.

14. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where

the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with T. Tangar

P.S. Case No.38 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.401 of 2023, order taking

cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned C.J.M., Simdega as also the

further proceedings of the said case, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed

and set aside.

15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in

connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.38 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.

No.401 of 2023, order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned

Cr. M.P. No.3338 of 2023

C.J.M., Simdega as also the further proceedings of the said case is quashed and

set aside qua the petitioner.

16. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

17. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., Interlocutory Application

No.9942 of 2023 stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of November, 2023 AFR/ Animesh