Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 800 (JHR)

Khagen Chandra Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-14

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. The solitary question, which has come up for consideration in this writ application, is as to whether the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 being Chowka P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 484 of 2010 instituted under Section 498-A, 406, 420 and 494/34 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the subsequent order taking cognizance vide order dated 26.03.2014 can be allowed to be compounded? 2. The details of the facts is not required to be reproduced herein rather a brief statement of fact would be sufficient for the determination of the issue involved in this writ application: At the instance of the present respondent no.2, the informant, Chowka P.S. Case no. 34 of 2010 was instituted under the aforesaid Sections on the allegation that the respondent no.2 was married with the petitioner no.1 Khagen Chandra Mahato on 30.03.2007 and after the marriage, she stayed for some time in her matrimonial house happily with all the in-laws and family members, who are petitioner nos. 2 to 4, but after some time, they started demanding Rupees Five Lakhs for doing business and assaulted her time-to-time and made allegations regarding her caste and also threatened to solemnize the second marriage of her husband with another girl of their own caste. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet under the aforesaid sections where after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 26.03.2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Seriakella as the cognizance was also taken under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet under the aforesaid sections where after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 26.03.2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Seriakella as the cognizance was also taken under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the said court, as it appears from the Annexure-4 enclosed with this writ application, a petition was filed by the informant-respondent no.2stating therein that she is the legally married wife of Khagen Chandra Mahato and though there were some differences earlier but now she has amicably settled the dispute with her husband and other accused persons and they are living happily and peacefully and leading her conjugal life and since good relationship has been restored, she does not want to proceed with this case any longer but as the court refused to pass any order before framing of charge, the present petitioners preferred this writ petition. It further appears from the record that earlier at the instance of the petitioners, one W.P.(Cr.) no. 370 of 2010 was filed for quashing of the First Information Report but the same was dismissed with observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all their grievances before the trial court at appropriate stage and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order without being prejudiced with any observation made in the order. 3. In the instant case, the respondent no.2 suo moto appeared and filed counter affidavit stating therein that respondent no.2 has been living and staying with her husband-petitioner no.1 with all love and affection as wife and husband since a year back and now she has no grievance either with her husband or with any other petitioners of this case and she is also in family way. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is also stated that she does not want to proceed with the case any further. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of the provisions of this case are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and in a case Gian Singh Vs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some of the provisions of this case are compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and in a case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has widened the scope and held that the offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted. It was also submitted that since the parties have compromised the case and are physically present in court, justice demands that F.I.R. and the subsequent order of taking cognizance be quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that in the changed circumstances, even if the proceeding in the trial court is allowed to continue, in such eventuality, there would be almost no chance of conviction and it would be a sheer wastage of the court’s valuable time. Learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2 also fairly submitted that the parties have settled their disputes and a counter affidavit to that extent has also been filed in this case and in the interest of justice and to save the family, she has no objection, if the entire proceeding and order taking cognizance are quashed. 5. All the petitioners and respondent no.2, the victim lady, are physically present in court and onquery, they accepted that they have settled their disputes and none of them has any grievance with any of the party and the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 are now enjoying their marital life. In the above referred case Gian Singh Vs. 5. All the petitioners and respondent no.2, the victim lady, are physically present in court and onquery, they accepted that they have settled their disputes and none of them has any grievance with any of the party and the petitioner no.1 and respondent no. 2 are now enjoying their marital life. In the above referred case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the ratio that when the parties have settled all the disputes between them amicably irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court within the frame work of its inherent power has every jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding and the F.I.R. In B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another; (2003) 4 SCC 675 , almost a similar issue was involved and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed the parties to compound the offences. It is true that the provision of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not compoundable but as it is dependent on other provisions of Indian Penal Code, same can also be compounded in view of the ratio decided in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra). The respondent no. 2 has clearly averred in her counter affidavit that she has now no grievance against these petitioners and she does not want to continue with the proceeding of this case. Hence, the parties are allowed to compound the offences. 6. Hence, in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioners being Chowka P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 484 of 2010, pending in the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella and the subsequent order taking cognizance of offence dated 26.03.2014 in SC/ST Case no. 04 of 2014 are, hereby, quashed. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is, hereby, allowed.