Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 311 (JHR)

Sanjay Anand v. State of Jharkhand

2021-03-17

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2021
ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Shadab Eqbal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State and Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2021, husband and wife have appeared in person through their Advocates in the Court. 3. This quashing application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding connecting with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2019 lodged under Sections 341/323/379/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The informant is the husband of petitioner no.3, namely, Pooja Chhabra. Petitioner no.3 has filed Complaint Case No.874 of 2018 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi and another Original Maintenance Case No.58 of 2018 in the concerned court. In the maintenance case, the matter was sent for mediation and in the mediation, both the parties have agreed to compromise the case, wherein, it has been agreed that Sumit Chabra (opposite party no.2) will pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs to Pooja Chhabra (petitioner no.3). Pursuant to that direction, which was submitted at bar by the learned counsel for the parties, the divorce has been taken place which has been confirmed by the husband and wife appearing in person in the Court. 5. This is a case of F.I.R. and complaint case. The dispute has been settled and divorce has been taken place. In light of the statement made before the Court by the husband and wife in presence of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the settlement has been made out between the parties. 6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 in paragraphs 16 and 17, which are quoted herein below: “16. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in the matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction. It is trite to state that the power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only when the Court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. It is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and Section 482 of the Code enables the High Court and Article 142 of the Constitution enables this Court to pass such orders. 17. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 4-7-2012 passed in Rajendra Singh Raghuvanshi v. Aarkshi Kendra Police Mahila Thana and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Class I, Indore. 7. In view of these facts, there is no public interest involved in the case in hand and there is no chance of conviction. 7. In view of these facts, there is no public interest involved in the case in hand and there is no chance of conviction. There is no reason to unnecessarily linger the matter in view of the fact that both the parties have already settled the dispute. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 44 of 2019 is quashed. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.