Jharkhand High Court

Santosh Thapa @ Santosh Bahadur Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               Cr.M.P. No.2806 of 2024
                                              ------

Santosh Thapa @ Santosh Bahadur aged about 40 years son of Late Gopal Bahadur resident of 47, Dhirajganj, Satwahni, P.O. + P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella (Kharsawan).

                                                     ...      Petitioner

                                          Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Bittu Pandey son of Dilip Pandey resident of Manjhi Tola, Panchavati Colony, P.O. + P.S.- Adityapur, District- Seraikella (Kharsawan) ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioner           : Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Advocate
             For the State                : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2            : Mr. Manish 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 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the First Information Report

as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case

No.104 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307,

34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27/25 (1-b) a/26/35 of the Arms

Act which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Seraikella.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite

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

Application No.10147 of 2024 which is supported by the separate affidavits of

the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the informant/victim of the case wherein it

has been categorically mentioned that the petitioner is neither named in the

F.I.R. nor any specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioner. The

parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court. The petitioner and

the informant are close friends. It is next submitted that due to trivial dispute,

the occurrence took place between the co-accused Sheru Singh Sardar and the

informant and the petitioner has no nexus with the alleged occurrence. It is

next submitted that the co-accused Sheru Singh Sardar who was named in the

First Information Report, has already been acquitted vide judgment dated

16.03.2024. It is next submitted that in view of the compromise between the

parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is then

submitted that the informant/victim has no grievance against the petitioner

and after a long delay of four years, the police with ulterior motive after the

acquittal of the co-accused Sheru Singh Sardar has apprehended the petitioner

in the instant case in order to harass and blackmail the petitioner although the

informant has no grievance against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that

the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising

out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 which is now pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the

compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing and

setting aside the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal

proceedings arising out of Adityapur P.S. Case No.104 of 2020 which is now

pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

here that 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 reads 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. 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)

had the occasion to consider the scope and ambit of section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis exercise of the said power for quashing

the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences punishable under section

307 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. 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

involved in this case, rather the same relates to private dispute between the

parties.

7. Because of the complete 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