Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 128 (JHR)

Nikhil Ranjan Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-29

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2015
ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 991 of 2014, registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Scraikella. 2. It appears that a complaint was made by the opposite party No. 2 before the Mahila Thana, Seraikella and on being noticed, the petitioner No. 1 had appeared and the matter was finally settled which would be evident from the noting made in the notice issued by the Mahila Thana, Seraikella. However, it appears that prior to the compromise, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) was instituted being Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2014 by the opposite party No. 2 herein against the petitioners. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that after the F.I.R. was registered, an application was submitted by the opposite party No. 2 herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in which it was stated that on account of misunderstanding a case was registered, but thereafter the matter has been settled before the Mahila Thana, Seraikella and as such she does not have any grievance against the petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has supported the aforesaid facts and has further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is not interested in continuing with the present criminal proceedings instituted by her and accordingly, the present application may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the matter has been settled with the intervention of well wishers at the Mahila Thana on 12.10.2014 and an application to that effect has also been filed by the parties. In this context reference may be made to the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein it has been held thus: "14. In this context reference may be made to the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , wherein it has been held thus: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." 6. This view has also been reiterated in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein it was held as follows: "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 secure: (i) ends of justice. (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. 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." 7. Regard being had to the fact that the matter has already been compromised and no fruitful purpose will be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding, I am inclined to entertain this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This application is accordingly allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Raj Nagar P.S. Case No. 55 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. No. 991 of 2014, registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella is hereby quashed.