Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 827 (JHR)

Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-11

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 05/2022 corresponding to Lohardaga SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2022 registered under sections 420, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C and under section 3(1)(ix) & 3(1) (xii) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga. 3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case is arising out of civil dispute. He submits that there is allegation against the petitioner for not transferring the land in favour of the informant. He further submits that subsequently the informant and petitioner have compromised the case and compromise petition has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to this petition. 4. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 accepts the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submits that matter has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed further with this case. He submits that entire criminal proceeding can be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that as the matter has been compromised, the Court may pass appropriate order. 6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the compromise matter and it has been held that if the offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain the High Court from exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the case of “Ramawatar V. State of Madhya Pradesh” [Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011] wherein at paragraph 16, it has been observed as follows:- 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.” 7. Even in non-compoundable offence compromise has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the compromise between the parties by way of annexure-2 to the petition, the Court is inclined to invoke its power conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. As such entire criminal proceeding so far as petitioners is concerned is hereby quashed for the following reasons:- (i) the criminal proceeding is private in nature, (ii) nature of F.I.R. is with regard to transfer of land (iii) criminal administrative justice is unaffected in view of amicable settlement between the parties. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ramawatar (supra) and Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra), the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 05/2022 corresponding to Lohardaga SC/ST Case No. 06 of 2022 registered under sections 420, 323, 504, 506 of the I.P.C and under section 3(1)(ix) & 3(1) (xii) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st-cum-Special Judge, Lohardaga, so far as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. 10. Cr.M.P. No. 1968 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.