Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2242 (JHR)

Surendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-10

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 2985 of 2018 and Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 who have reversed their role in Cr. M.P. No. 3260 of 2018. 2. In Cr. M.P. No. 2985 of 2018 the petitioners are aggrieved by the institution of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 387, 379, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In Cr. M.P. No. 3260 of 2018 the petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal prosecution in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 452, 325 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation which formed the subject matter of Cr. M.P. No. 2985 of 2018 is to the effect that when the opposite party no. 2 on 13.03.2018 was going along with his nephew and staffs towards his home by closing the shop the accused persons all of a sudden appeared and the informant was assaulted on his head which resulted in his suffering an injury. It has been alleged that the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 3 on the point of pistol has snatched away the golden chain and a cash of Rs. 12,000/-. In the meantime, people of the locality arrived and the informant-party was taken to the hospital. 5. Based on the aforesaid allegation Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018 was registered. 6. The allegation which forms the subject matter of Cr. M.P. No. 3260 of 2018 is to the effect that the opposite party no. 2 (petitioner no. 1 in Cr. M.P. No. 2985 of 2018) was withdrawing money from the SBI ATM at which point of time the accused persons entered into the ATM Room and when the security guard raised objection he was subjected to assault. It has been alleged that the other accused persons also assembled and assaulted the opposite party no. 2 which resulted in his suffering injury on his head. It has been alleged that the other accused persons also assembled and assaulted the opposite party no. 2 which resulted in his suffering injury on his head. Allegation has also been levelled that the accused persons had entered into the house of the informant forcibly and assaulted the nephew of the informant and apart from damaging the restaurant from the counter they have snatched away an amount of Rs. 12,000/-. 7. Based on the aforesaid allegation Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018 has been registered. 8. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that in both the cases the matter has been compromised between the parties for which he has referred to I.A. No. 9362 of 2018 which is with respect to Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018. He submits that basically the dispute is with respect to the food stalls which are being run by the warring factions but subsequently at the behest of the well wishers the matter has been compromised and the dispute has been settled. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also adds that even if a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out but considering the proximity of the compromise entered into with respect to the date of occurrence the same is permissible under law to be compounded for which he has referred to the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 . In the circumstances noted above, he has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018. 9. Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 2985 of 2018 has accepted the factum of compromise and has further submitted his argument with respect to Cr. M.P. No. 3260 of 2018 which is concerned with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018. In the said case also a joint compromise petition being I.A. (Cr.) No. 9361 of 2018 has been filed which has been referred to by Mr. Pran Pranay, by stating that the compromise having been effected immediately after the occurrence and since the same does not involve any public policy the said case also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. To this Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. Pran Pranay, by stating that the compromise having been effected immediately after the occurrence and since the same does not involve any public policy the said case also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. To this Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in Cr. M.P. No. 3260 of 2018 has not made any objection and has accepted that the matter has been compromised and therefore he does not have any grievance against the petitioners. 11. It appears that with respect to single incident a case and a counter case was instituted being Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018 and Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018. It also appears that both the parties have suffered injuries on account of the assault committed upon each other which may be on account of the business rivalry between the parties. However, after the First Information Reports were instituted and prior to submission of charge-sheet at the behest of the well wishers the matter has been compromised between the parties. Although Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018 also includes an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code considering that immediately on the incident having taken place both the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The same will also not stand in the way of the petitioners in praying for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in spite of the said offence apart from Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code being a non-compoundable offence. 12. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “29.1. 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. 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 to secure: (i) ends of justice. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 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 to 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. 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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. 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. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter 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. 29.7. 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. 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. 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.” 13. The averments made in I.A. (Cr.) No. 9362 of 2018 and I.A. (Cr.) No. 9361 of 2018 in the respective cases does support what has been stated by the learned counsels for the respective parties and in the circumstances narrated above even though some of the offences are non-compoundable in nature the same will not be an impediment in closure of the criminal prosecution in view of the compromise so arrived at. 14. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above both these applications stand allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 89 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 927 of 2018 and Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 928 of 2018, are hereby quashed and set aside. Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. Applications allowed.