Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 January, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3743 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3743 of 2019
1. Sunil Singh @ Sunil Kumar Singh
2. Navnit Singh @ Navnit Kumar
3. Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Suresh Ram ... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the son of O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
-----
06/18.01.2024 Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ranjit Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the son of deceased opposite
party no.2.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR and entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Haidernagar P.S. Case No.93 of 2019, dated
14.09.2019, registered under Section 341, 323, 387, 504, 34 of the Indian
Penal code and Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the Court of the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST) cum Additional District Judge-I, Palamau at
Daltonganj.
3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that the informant Suresh Ram
has stated that on 24.04.2019 at about 04:00 P.M., co-villagers Sunil Singh,
Navnit Singh and Arvind Singh, resident of village Golhana came to his PDS
Shop and after breaking the lock of the shop, stolen 50-50 KG bag of rice. It
was further alleged that when the informant protested the act of accused
persons, they hurled abuses and started assaulting and abused by his caste
name to the informant.
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the alleged occurrence had taken place on 24.04.2019, whereas, the FIR
was lodged nearly after five months on 14.09.2019. He further submits that
there is allegation against the petitioners that on 24.04.2019, the petitioners
came and stolen sack of rice of 50 KG and they have also abused the
informant in the name of his caste. He also submits that opposite party no.2
has left for his heavenly abode and I.A. No.11311 of 2023 has been filed on
behalf of the son of opposite party no.2 for substitution.
5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of son
of deceased opposite party no.2 submits that I.A. No.11311 of 2023 has
been filed on behalf of the son of opposite party no.2-informant as opposite
party no.2 has left for his heavenly abode. He further submits that the son
of the informant is not willing to proceed further as there is compromise
between the parties. He also submits that the entire criminal proceeding
may kindly be quashed.
6. Mr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the State submits that only
the FIR is under challenge.
7. It is an admitted position that the alleged occurrence is said to be on
24.04.2019, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2019 and the allegations
are made of taking away sack of rice of 50 KG. The son of opposite party
no.2 has filed I.A. No.11311 of 2023 for substitution and Mr. Ranjit Kumar
Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on his behalf submits that the son of the
informant is not willing to proceed further in the matter as there is
compromise between the parties.
8. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the case relates
to Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes) Act, 1989, in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 along with
Criminal Appeal No. 1488 of 2012 and in that case, the compromise
has been considered and it has been held that the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be
invoked. For ready reference, paragraph 19 of the said judgment is quoted
hereinbelow:
"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by
the compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings,
bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the
conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if
any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the
accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported
offence and/or other relevant considerations."
9. It is well settled that where the compromise is entered into between
the parties and societal interest is not there, the High Court can exercise the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the Sections are not
compoundable.
10. In view of the said compromise, this Court is inclined to invoke the
power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As such, the entire criminal
proceeding so far as the petitioners are concerned is, hereby, quashed for
the reasons that must be the occurrence involved in this petition can be
categorized as purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings
of private nature; secondly the nature of complaint is with regard to taking
away the rice and thirdly the cause of administration of criminal justice
system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement
between the parties.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the FIR and entire
criminal proceeding in connection with Haidernagar P.S. Case No.93 of
2019, dated 14.09.2019, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge
(SC/ST) cum Additional District Judge-I, Palamau at Daltonganj is quashed.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
13. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
