Allowed

Ajay Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2023Cr.M.P./626/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition to quash the cognizance order in a criminal case under Sections 419, 420, 467-471, 120B IPC involving property forgery. Citing settled precedent, the court held that given the private nature of the dispute, the complete settlement by parties, and the remote possibility of conviction, quashing the case was necessary to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 and G.R. No.1513 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.

Ajay Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

Cr. M.P. No.626 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.626 of 2023

¶3

------

¶4

Ajay Singh, aged about 49 years S/o Sri Suraj Deo Singh resident of Lake Road, Kailash Babu Street, P.S. Daily Market, P.O.- G.P.O, Ranchi, District- Ranchi … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

… The State of Jharkhand Opposite Party

¶7

For the Petitioner : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate Mr. Rajan Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Jayant Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Abhinay Preet, Advocate

¶8

------

¶9

P R E S E N T

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶11

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶12

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 cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1513 of 2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with coaccused persons was involved in forging documents in order to sell the property belonging to the informant by making false genealogical table and other documents.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.626 of 2023

¶17

No.8110 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant and it is jointly submitted that the parties have compromised the case with the intervention of well-wishers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute and in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1513 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Learned Addl.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 cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1513 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

¶19

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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on

¶20

¶21

Cr. M.P. No.626 of 2023

¶22

the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11

¶23

as under:-

¶24

“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) 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)

¶25

“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 and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation

¶26

¶27

Cr. M.P. No.626 of 2023

¶28

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)”

¶29

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offences of mental depravity involved in this case rather the offences involved in this case relates to private dispute between the parties; arising out of civil disputes.

¶30

Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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.

¶31

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the cognizance order dated 17.05.2021 in connection with Doranda P.S. Case No.01 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. No.1513 of 2021 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶32