Allowed

Abhishek Kumar Alias Abhishek Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Aug 2024Cr.M.P./1842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings for offences under the IPC and Information Technology Act. The parties had amicably settled their private dispute by compromise. Holding the offences were not heinous and conviction was remote after settlement, the court quashed the FIR and entire proceeding qua the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Entire criminal proceeding along with FIR of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 quashed qua the petitioner.

Abhishek Kumar Alias Abhishek Kumar Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1842 of 2024

¶2

------

¶3

Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar, Aged about :- 23 years, Son of - Shyam Narayan Thakur, Resident of village - Chunapur Road, Gali No.9, Post Office and Police Station - Purnea, District - Purnea, StateBihar … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Saloni Beck Daughter of Vijya Beck, Resident of Village- Hethma, Sarak Toli, Post Office and Police Station- Kurdega, District…

¶7

Simdega Opposite Parties

¶8

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate

¶9

------

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

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 entire criminal proceeding along with the first information report of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No.10 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506, 509, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B, 66C, 67A of the Information Technology Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court to Interlocutory Application No.7164 of 2024 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2- informant and submit that therein it has been mentioned that the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 are friends and they 1 Cr. M.P. No.1842 of 2024

¶15

have entered into a compromise with intervention of well-wishers and close relatives and amicably settled their dispute outside the court. The opposite party No.1 has no more any grievance against the petitioner; hence, she does not want to proceed with the criminal prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further jointly submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement 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 entire criminal proceeding along with the first information report of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no.10 of 2023 dated 30.04.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 354(D), 506, 509, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B, 66C, 67A of the Information Technology Act which is now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, be quashed and set aside.

¶16

Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding along with the first information report of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no.10 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506, 509, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B, 66C, 67A of the Information Technology Act which is now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega.

¶17

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

¶18

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

¶19

¶20

Cr. M.P. No.1842 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

as under:-

¶23

“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)

¶24

“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

¶25

¶26

Cr. M.P. No.1842 of 2024

¶27

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 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)”

¶28

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are

¶29

not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties.

¶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 proceeding 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

¶32

the entire criminal proceeding along with the first information report of

¶33

¶34

Cr. M.P. No.1842 of 2024

¶35

Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no.10 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506, 509, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B, 66C, 67A of the Information Technology Act which is now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, be quashed and set aside.

¶36

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding along with the first information report of Simdega Mahila P.S. Case no.10 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354D, 506, 509, 386 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66B, 66C, 67A of the Information Technology Act, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

¶37