Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 316 (JHR)

Pawan Ojha S/o Binda Ojha v. State of Jharkhand

2022-03-21

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 202/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2931/2015 and for quashing the order dated 03.10.2015 and order dated 22.02.2016, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh. 2. The F.I.R has been registered on the written report of the informant alleging therein that on 08.07.2015 at 5 p.m. in the evening she was selling tea at her shop. In the meantime, from Bolero and Bullet vehicles - Pawan Ojha (petitioner) Santosh Nishad and 3-4 others came having wine in their hands and asked for glass for consuming liquor. On that when she prevented them, then they started beating her and also molested her and torn her blouse and also tried to disrobe her saree. On raising alarm, when her husband came to protect her then they also beaten and abused him and went away from the place of occurrence extending threat to kill them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2 have entered into compromise between the petitioner as well as O.P. No. 2. He submits that in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another and Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, this Court is having jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceeding even if the case is non-compoundable. 4. In the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case. 30. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.” 5. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc. cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above questions is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. An I.A. bearing I.A. No. 4384/2017 has been filed by both the parties wherein in paragraph thereof it has been stated as under: “4. That it is stated and submitted that on 03.05.2017 both the parties were present personally before the Hon’ble Court, and Hon’ble Court after hearing both the counsels and talking with both the parties directed them to file joint compromise petition before the Hon’ble Court.” 7. This I.A. has been filed on the affidavit of both the parties. In paragraph no. 7 of the said I.A. it has been disclosed as under: “7. That it is stated and submitted that no such occurrence of beating or molestation or tearing of blouse of opposite party no. 2 had taken place during the course of occurrence as has been alleged in F.I.R.” 8. In view of the above facts and considering that the O.P. No. 2 has appeared before the Court as disclosed in paragraph no. 2 had taken place during the course of occurrence as has been alleged in F.I.R.” 8. In view of the above facts and considering that the O.P. No. 2 has appeared before the Court as disclosed in paragraph no. 4 of the said I.A. and considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Singh and Narinder Singh (supra) the entire criminal proceeding of Barhi (Padma) P.S. Case No. 202/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 2931/2015, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh is hereby quashed. 9. Cr. M.P. No. 623 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.