Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1104 (JHR)

Md. Jahid @ Abbu @ Jahid v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-12

P.P.BHATT

body2014
Judgment : Present criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire prosecution in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 103/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 251/12, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj as well as the order of cognizance dated 15.6.2012 taken against the petitioners under Sections 147/ 341/ 323/ 504/ 379/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the informant-opposite party No.2 as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the materials placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant have jointly submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, as the informant and the accused persons are the distant relatives and co-villagers and accordingly, compromise petition was filed before the learned court-below on 22.5.2013. It is also submitted that good feeling has been restored between both the parties and therefore, informant does not want to proceed with the case further and accordingly, it is prayed to keep this compromise application on record and drop the criminal prosecution to meet the ends of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the informant further submitted that, in fact, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; however, learned court-below has taken cognizance on the basis of restatement of the informant. 5. In this context, learned counsels for the parties have also submitted that injuries, received by the informant and other relatives , were simple in nature and this fact reveals from the injury certificate, wherein the Doctor, upon examination, has categorically stated that the injuries, inflicted upon the informant and other relatives, were simple in nature; however, cognizance has been taken under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsels for the parties have jointly submitted that after taking cognizance by the learned court-below, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and accordingly, compromise application was submitted before the learned court-below. 6. Learned counsels for the parties have jointly submitted that after taking cognizance by the learned court-below, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and accordingly, compromise application was submitted before the learned court-below. Since the order taking cognizance has been challenged before this Court by invoking the provisions as contained under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is humbly prayed that this Court may in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dispose of all the present three petitions by taking note of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, as no fruitful purpose will be served by proceeding further with the trial, in view of the subsequent development that has taken place. 7. Learned counsels for the parties have also invited attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014)3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 54, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “31. In the present case, FIR No. 121 dated 14-7-2010 was registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC. The 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 along with 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 quashed the proceedings. 32. 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 quashed the proceedings. 32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view. 33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz. “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise uptil now, which could not be finalised”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 14-7-2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly”. 8. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 121 dated 14-7-2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly”. 8. In view of the above stated submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact regarding amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that there will be no fruitful purpose in allowing the trial to proceed further and it will be a futile exercise, as the prosecution witnesses are not going to support the prosecution case. Therefore, in view of the above referred decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, all the present three criminal miscellaneous petitions are required to be allowed and accordingly, all the present three criminal miscellaneous petitions are ordered to be allowed. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 103/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 251/12, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj as well as the order taking cognizance dated 15.6.2012 taken against the petitioners under Sections 147/ 341/ 323/ 504/ 379/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act are hereby quashed. 9. All the present three criminal miscellaneous petitions stand allowed and disposed of. Petitions allowed.