Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 940 (JHR)

Dilshad Ansari @ Md. Dilu v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners for the offences under section 366, 34 IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.118/2017 (corresponding to G.R.No.1621/2017)/POCSO Case No.49/2018 as the same is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law. Presently the case is pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra. 2. The FIR has been lodged alleging that the complainant’s daughter Nasreen Parveen on 28.9.2017 at about 7.00 p.m went outside the house for taking back cow. In the meantime the accused no.1 Noushad Mian and one unknown person came on motorcycle and tried to forcibly to sit his daughter on motorcycle upon which his daughter raised alarm and hearing the alarm of his daughter the complainant and witnesses came out from his house and saw them fleeing. It is further alleged that on the same day the accused no.1 along with unknown person was moving in the village who with the intention to marry with her daughter has kidnapped her. It is further stated in the complaint that about two years ago marriage of her daughter was settled with the accused no.1 but for some reason the same could not materialized. On 29.9.2017 at about 11 am one call from mobile no.9572689682 was received in his mobile no.9006543245 in which the voice was of her daughter who told that Noushad has brought me and thereafter the mobile was disconnected and thereafter on making call on that mobile no. the same was found switched off. It is further alleged in the complaint that for enquiring about the matter the complainant alongwith witnesses went to the village of Noushad where Md. Dilu Mian (petitioner no.1) and Abul Kais (petitioner no.2). The complainant apprehend that the accused Noushand might commit sexual offence with his daughter and kill her. 3. Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submits that the petitioner no.1 is brother of the husband of the O.P.No.3 and petitioner no.2 is co-villager of the husband of the O.P.No.3. 4. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and 3 on instruction submits that there is compromise between the parties. Mr. 3. Mr. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset submits that the petitioner no.1 is brother of the husband of the O.P.No.3 and petitioner no.2 is co-villager of the husband of the O.P.No.3. 4. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 and 3 on instruction submits that there is compromise between the parties. Mr. Mishra further submits that he has contacted with O.P.No.3 and she has instructed him that husband of the O.P.no.2 and the O.P.No.3 have married and they are happily living their conjugal life. He further submits that a joint compromise petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as the O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 and the said compromise petition is supported with separate affidavits by the petitioners and the O.P.Nos.2 and 3. 5. Mr. Prasad, the leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of marriage now they have been blessed with a child. 6. In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, particularly, looking to the compromise petition which is on record, and considering that the husband and wife are happily living their conjugal life and the petitioners are brother of the husband of O.P.no.2 and another is the co-villager of the husband of the O.P.no.3. and to allow this petition to continue with the criminal proceeding in the court below shall amount abuse of process of law and as there is no societal interest involved in this petition, a reference may be made to the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , and “Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.” reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , this Court comes to the conclusion that this is a fit case to exercise powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners for the offences under section 366, 34 IPC and section 4 of POCSO Act in connection with Pratappur P.S. Case No.118/2017 (corresponding to G.R.No.1621/2017)/POCSO Case No.49/2018 presently pending in the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra is hereby quashed. 8. Mr. Nandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. 8. Mr. Nandan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the Opposite parties submit that the parties are bound to abide by the terms and the conditions of the compromise. 9. Cr.M.P. No. 1782 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed