Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 401 (JHR)

Prabhu Nath Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-07

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2019
ORDER : 1. Mr. V. P. Singh, the learned Senior counsel appears for the petitioners in Cr. M. P. No. 2629 of 2016 and Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel appears for the petitioners in Cr.M.P. No. 2049 of 2016. 2. It is stated that on a trivial issue, in the heat of moment, the parties entered into a quarrel and lodged criminal cases against each other. 3. In Cr.M.P. No. 2629 of 2016, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Doranda P.S. Case no. 372 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 4822 of 2007 now converted to Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2009. 4. In Cr.M.P. No. 2049 of 2016, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 373 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 4806 of 2007 now converted to Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2008. 5. By an order dated 25.01.2017 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 2629 of 2016 further proceeding in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2009 has been stayed by this Court and by an order dated 30.01.2017 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2049 of 2016 further proceeding in Doranda P.S. Case No. 373 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No. 4806 of 2007 (S.T. No. 466 of 2008) has been stayed by this Court. 6. Proceeding in these quash-petitions would indicate that this Court was informed that the parties have settled their dispute amongst themselves. 7. The order dated 25.01.2017 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 2629 of 2016 refers to the judgment in “Narinder Singh and others Vrs. State of Punjab and another” reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 8. Order dated 21.01.2019, when these quash-petitions were heard together, indicates that both the parties are committed to the settlement said to have been arrived between them. It is stated that by intervention of the well-wishers and the friends in the society good sense has prevailed and the parties have realised that to restore peace and harmony in the neighbourhood it is necessary for them to withdraw the cases filed against each other. 9. It is stated that by intervention of the well-wishers and the friends in the society good sense has prevailed and the parties have realised that to restore peace and harmony in the neighbourhood it is necessary for them to withdraw the cases filed against each other. 9. The offence under section 307 IPC is not compoundable, however, of late the judicial trend is that the High Court in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C which is the inherent power of the Court to do justice between the parties in appropriate cases even non-compoundable cases can be quashed. In “Narinder Singh” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated the circumstances in which criminal proceeding in non-compoundable cases can be quashed by the High Court, thus; 29. “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: 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, or (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. 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. 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 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. 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”. 10. The facts disclosed in the present proceeding would indicate that it was a trivial dispute between the neighbours which has led to filing of the case and counter-case by the parties. The allegations made by the parties against each other are also not so well-founded. Keeping these facts in mind and the judgment in “Narinder Singh”, I am of the opinion that in view of the settlement between the parties, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of S.T. Case No. 466 of 2008 and S.T. Case No. 94 of 2009 must be quashed. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. The petitioners in both the cases stand discharged of their liability of bail-bonds, if any, furnished by them. 13. I.A. No. 299 of 2019 in Cr. M. P. No. 2629 of 2016 stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.