Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 924 (JHR)

Sumant Prasad Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-24

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 307, 386 of the Indian Penal Code which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.7165 of 2019 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that the informant/opposite party No.2/victim has compromised the case outside the court with consultation and advice of their well-wishers and common friends and now cordial relationship has been restored and good sense has prevailed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the case and the entire incident took place at the heat of the moment generated consequent upon an accident by a vehicle in which a young boy died. It is next submitted that no injury was caused to the victim but the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been incorporated to make the case grave but in view of the settlement, the informant/opposite party No.2/victim does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of court as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 4. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has summed up and laid down the principles by which High Court will be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings paragraph-29 of which read as under:- “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Now, coming to the facts of the case; perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners stopped the vehicle of the informant and assaulted the informant and committed theft of Rs.15,000/- and one mobile phone. The case is at the nascent stage of investigation. There is no material in the record to suggest any injuries having been sustained by the complainant rather the contents of the Interlocutory Application No.7165 of 2019 show that no injury has been sustained. This is a case where the fate of the case depends solely upon the testimony of the opposite party No. 2 but as already indicated above, since the opposite party No.2, has categorically stated on oath that he is not interested to pursue this case because of the compromise entered into between him and the petitioners; this Court has no hesitation in holding that in all likelihood the case will end up in an acquittal as the opposite party No.2 is unlikely to support the case of prosecution because of the compromise. 7. 7. In the absence of any weapon of offence weapon having been used by anybody and in the absence of any major injuries, having been sustained by anybody the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on the basis of allegations made and the incorporation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is there for the sake of it. 8. Under such circumstances and in view of the compromise between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding, will amount to abuse of process of court and this is a fit case where the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Dhanwar P.S. Case No.120 of 2019 which is pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 11. In view of the disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., Interlocutory Application No.7165 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly.