Allowed

Hridesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC3 Jul 2023Cr.M.P./247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings initiaded under Section 482 CrPC in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, relying on a compromise between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021 and corresponding G.R. No. 1132 of 2021, including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021.

Hridesh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

1 Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 With Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3341 of 2021

¶4

Kiran Sharma, aged about 61 years, wife of late Jamuna Sharma, permanent resident of Qtr. No. 873/A, Domohani Railway Colony, Kalla Central Hospital, Asansol North, Asansol, Mohishila, Bardhhaman, P.O.- Kalla (C.H.) P.S. Asansol North, Dist. Bardhhaman, presently residing at Flat No.3B2, Tower-3, Silver Oak Street, Kali Park, Rajarhat, P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Narayanpur, Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶5

.... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Dimple Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Hridesh Kumar Sharma, resident of Bengali Tola, Chatti Bazar, Ramgarh Cant., P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

With

¶11

Hridesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 31 years, sone of late Jamuna Sharma, resident of Flat No.3B2, Tower-3, Silver Oak Street, Kali Park, Rajarhat, P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Narayanpur, Kolkata (West Bengal)

¶12

.... Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Jharkhand

¶15

Dimple Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Hridesh Kumar Sharma, resident of Bengali Tola, Chatti Bazar, Ramgarh Cant., P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh (Jharkhand)

¶16

…. Opp. Parties

¶17

With

¶18

Sunil Sharma @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of late Ramashish Sharma, resident of Quarter No.2, 4^th Floor, Block -1,

¶19

2 Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 With Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022

¶20

With

¶21

With Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶22

Type III, Aayakar Niwas, 18, Ultadanga Main Road, P.O. & P.S.Ultadanga, Dist. Kolkata 700067 (West Bengal)

¶23

Jagriti Sharma, aged about 30 years, wife of Sunil Sharma @ Sunil Kumar, resident of Quarter No.2, 4^th Floor, Block -1, Aayakar Niwas, 18, Ultadanga Main Road, P.O. & P.S.- Ultadanga, Dist. Kolkata 700067 (West Bengal)

¶24

.... Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

The State of Jharkhand

¶27

2. Dimple Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Hridesh Kumar Sharma, presently resident of Bengali Tola, Chatti Bazar, Ramgarh Cant., P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist. Ramgarh (Jharkhand) Permanent resident of Qr. No.873/A, Domohani, Railway Colony Kalla, Central Hospital Asansol North, Asansol North, Asansol Durgapur Police Commissionerate, P.O. & P.S.- Asansol, Dist. Asansol, (W.B.)

¶28

…. Opp. Parties

¶29

P R E S E N T

¶30

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶31

….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Shishir Suman, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shailendra Jit, Advocate

¶32

By the Court:-

¶33

Heard the parties.

¶34

All the three criminal miscellaneous petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in

¶35

connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, corresponding

¶36

¶37

3 Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 With Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶38

to G.R. No. 1132 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021, whereby and where under, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 323, 341, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.5168 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 3341 of 2021, Interlocutory Application No.5170 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 247 of 2022 and Interlocutory Application No.5169 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 3272 of 2021 which are a joint compromise petitions supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners of the concerned criminal miscellaneous petitions and the opposite party no. 2; submits that therein it has been mentioned that with the intervention of well-wishers and common friends, the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 fully and finally resolved their dispute out of Court by way of compromise in an amicable settlement and in view of the compromise, the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 do not wish to pursue the case. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure- I.A/1 of the respective interlocutory applications the learned counsels jointly submit that the terms and condition of the settlement has been mentioned in the settlement agreement entered into between the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 by which the parties have decided to live

¶40

¶41

Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022

¶42

With Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 With

¶43

Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶44

separately as husband and wife. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the offence and the offences are not serious offences. Hence, it is submitted that for the ends of justice the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1132 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.

¶45

Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1132 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶46

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai

¶47

Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-

¶48

11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012)

¶49

¶50

Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶51

10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

¶52

“61. … 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 predominatingly 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. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender

¶53

¶54

Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022

¶55

With

¶56

With

¶57

Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶58

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 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶59

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this

¶60

case are neither heinous offences nor any serious offences of mental depravity is alleged to have taken place rather the alleged occurrence took place because of matrimonial dispute between the parties.

¶61

Because of the compromise between the offenders and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would certainly put the accusedpetitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

¶62

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, corresponding

¶63

¶64

7 Cr.M.P. No.3341 of 2021 With Cr.M.P. No.247 of 2022 With Cr.M.P. No.3272 of 2021

¶65

to G.R. No. 1132 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.

¶66

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 23 of 2021, corresponding to G.R. No. 1132 of 2021 including the order taking cognizance dated 02.12.2021 is quashed and set aside.

¶67

In the result, all the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.

¶68

Consequently, the Interlocutory Application No. 5168 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 3341 of 2021, Interlocutory Application No.5170 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 247 of 2022 and Interlocutory Application No.5169 of 2023 of Cr.M.P. No. 3272 of 2021 are disposed of being

¶69

infructuous.

¶70

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶71

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 3^rd July, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

Hridesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hridesh Kumar Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Salim Mansuri Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinod Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rohit Ray Alias Rohit Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Somari Devi And Ors. Vs Mahadeo Oraon And Ors.

Asmaul Haque Alias MD Asmaul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rekha Kumari Alias Beuty Kumari Alias Beuty Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand