Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 119 (JHR)

Bibhuti Mandal v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-03

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, dated 23.05.2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 458 of 2013, instituted under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 471, 468 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 209 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 10.05.2016, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara. 3. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Circle Officer and he was assigned with some movement work and it has been alleged that forgery has been committed and aggrieved with that, the complainant has filed complaint case which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. He further submits that the complainant has filed withdrawal petition before the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara on 23.05.2013 with prayer to withdraw the case and the same was accepted by the learned court vide order dated 05.06.2013 and a copy thereof was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Narayanpur Police Station to ends of justice, but the said withdrawal petition is still pending after passing of that order. He also submits that now good sense has prevailed between the parties and compromise has reached between the parties and therefore, I.A. No. 2117 of 2022 has been filed. He further submits that there is no public policy involved in this matter and on the basis of the said I.A., entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 4. Mr. Kaushik Sarekhel, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that on the heat of moment that F.I.R. was lodged and now compromise has reached between the parties. He also accepted the submission of Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that joint compromise petition has been filed being I.A. No. 2117 of 2022, which has been jointly affidavited. He also submits that the complainant does not want to proceed with the case. 5. Ms. He also accepted the submission of Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submits that joint compromise petition has been filed being I.A. No. 2117 of 2022, which has been jointly affidavited. He also submits that the complainant does not want to proceed with the case. 5. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that I.A. is there and it is for the Court to consider whether the same is required to be entertained or not. 6. In view of the above submissions, the Court has gone through the materials on the record especially contained in the said I.A. and finds that compromise has reached between the parties and considering that there is no societal interest involved in the matter and also onsidering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab; [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab; [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 , the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 65 of 2013, dated 23.05.2013, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 458 of 2013, arising out of P.C.R. Case No. 209 of 2013 including the order taking cognizance dated 10.05.2016, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamtara is, hereby, quashed. 7. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. 8. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.