Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1257 (JHR)

Shatrunjay Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-09

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT : This is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 223 of 2004, corresponding to T.R. No. 727 of 2004, including the order dated 13.07.2004 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner under Section 406 of the I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the parties have compromised their case outside the court and a joint compromise petition has been filed in this court vide I.A. No. 1375 of 2009. It is submitted that this is purely a private dispute between petitioner and opposite party no. 2 and no public policy involved in it. It is further submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 , it is in the interest of justice that the criminal proceeding be quashed in view of compromise between the parties specially when no public policy involve. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that since the parties have compromised their case and opposite party no. 2 has received all the due amounts from petitioner, therefore, he has no objection if on the basis of compromise petition, the criminal proceeding pending in the court below be quashed. 4. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It appears that a complaint petition has been filed in the court below alleging that the petitioner took Rs. 2, 50, 000/-and some ornaments of gold on the assurance that he will marry his son Piyush Anand with the grand daughter of opposite party no. 2. But later on he refused to solemnized the marriage and misappropriated the aforesaid Rs. 2, 50, 000/-and said ornaments. It appears that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate after going through the statements of complainant and witnesses came to the conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 406 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned court below directed for issuance of process against the accused. In the present application, theaforesaid order has been challenged. 5. It appears that during the pendency of this application opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit. Accordingly, the learned court below directed for issuance of process against the accused. In the present application, theaforesaid order has been challenged. 5. It appears that during the pendency of this application opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed counter affidavit. However, by order dated 27.11.2008 this court directed the parties to settle their dispute amicably and file a report regarding the said settlement. It appears that in pursuance of aforesaid order, the parties settled their dispute outside the court and filed a joint compromise petition vide I.A. No. 1375 of 2009. From perusal of said I.A. application, it appears that the due amount to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/-has been paid to opposite party no. 2 through bank draft issued by Oriental Bank of Commerce, Dhanbad Branch and rest Rs. 10, 000/-has been paid in cash. It is prayed in the said I.A. application that in view of the said compromise, the entire criminal proceeding relating to P.C.R. Case No. 223 of 2004 pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumka be quashed. 6. In Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 4 SCC 582 at paragraph no. 6 their lordships of Supreme Court held as follow: “6. We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.” 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law laid down by their lordships of Supreme Court, as dispute between the parties is purely a personal dispute, which ended on account of amicable settlement between them. Thus, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the said proceeding pending in the court below, because ultimately the case will result in acquittal of accused person. 8. Thus, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the said proceeding pending in the court below, because ultimately the case will result in acquittal of accused person. 8. Accordingly, I allow this application and quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 223 of 2004 corresponding to T.R. No. 727 of 2004 pending in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dumka.