Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1048 (JHR)

Ajay Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-16

P.P.BHATT

body2014
JUDGMENT P.P. BHATT, J. 1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the first information report in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2976 of 2008 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant. 3. Perused the materials placed on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and now, there is no dispute between the parties, which is settled outside the Court with the intervention of their well-wishers and elders. It is further submitted that the informant/ Opposite party No. 2 has not gone to proceed further with the case and accordingly, an application was submitted before the learned court below on 14th December, 2011. Copy of the said application is also annexed with the petition vide Annexure-2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of the compromise, I.A. No. 2113 of 2014 is also submitted before this Court, wherein, the petitioners as well as the informant have jointly prayed for acceptance of the compromise and disposal of this Cr. M.P. by quashing the First information Report in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008. By referring paragraph 2 of Annexure-2 to the said application, it is pointed out that the accused nos. 1 to 3 have been granted bail earlier and as a matter of fact, the accused nos. 1 to 3, whose names are appearing in the F.I.R., are alleged to have created an obstruction towards construction of the Boundary wall and the petitioner, who is a social worker and also the President of the Kendriya Sarna Samittee, intervened in the matter on the request of the informant and extended his cooperation to the informant and the Railway Department. Despite this fact, he has also been made because of misunderstanding and confusion. 5. Despite this fact, he has also been made because of misunderstanding and confusion. 5. The learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submitted that since the petitioner and the informant have amicably settled their inter se dispute outside the Court and the dispute is also a private dispute, the State has no objection, if the present Cr. M.P. is ordered to be disposed of by allowing the prayer. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have also invited attention of this Court to the decided given in the case of Narendra Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, decided on 27th March, 2014 by the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 9547 of 2013. Paragraphs 31 and 33 of the said decision appears to be relevant for the purpose of present case. Hence, the same are reproduced herein-below:- “31. 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: (i) 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. (ii) 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:- (1) Ends of justice. (2) 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. (iii) Such a power is not 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (iii) Such a power is not 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 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. (iv) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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. (v) 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. (vi) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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/delegate 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. 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 later 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. (vii) 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. 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. 33. In the present case, FIR No. 121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307, 324, 323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed, the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed alongwith the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.” 7. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash the proceedings.” 7. Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions as also the latest decision cited by the learned counsel for the parties, since the matter is amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and the informant does not want to proceed further with the case, the F.I.R. in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2008, dated 04.08.2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2976 of 2008 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi as well as the order dated 06.09.2013, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences referred above are ordered to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. is allowed and disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No. 2113 of 2014 also stands disposed of.