Shivam Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Cr. M.P. No.39 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.39 of 2024

------

Shivam Singh, Aged about 37 years, Son of Prabhu Prasad Singh, Resident of Satyam-Shivam-Sundram, Dela Toli, H.B. Road, P.O.RIMS, P.S.- Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Deepshikha, Aged about 29 years, Wife of Shivam Singh, Daughter of Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, Resident of- Duplex No. 13, Annapurna Enclave, Mitry Marg, Bariatu Housing Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties

¶8

For the Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Suresh Prajapati, 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 order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.10523 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class XXI, Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C-XXI, Ranchi.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.508 of 2024 which is supported by the separate

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.39 of 2024

¶17

affidavits of the petitioner and the informant/opposite party No.2 wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have mutually agreed to settle the long standing litigation of twenty months by entering into joint compromise agreement dated 09.01.2024 and the entire dispute has been settled down between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and no public policy is involved. It is next submitted that the cognizance order of the coaccused namely Shashi Kala Singh who is the mother-in-law of the opposite party No.2/informant has already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 12^th February, 2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No.4140 of 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the case, hence, 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 order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.10523 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class XXI, Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner which is now pending in the court of learned J.M.F.CXXI, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

¶18

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing and setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.10523 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-

¶19

¶20

Cr. M.P. No.39 of 2024

¶21

1^st Class XXI, Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner which is now pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C-XXI, Ranchi.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

as under:-

¶25

“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)

¶26

“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.

¶27

¶28

Cr. M.P. No.39 of 2024

¶29

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 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)”

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

Cr. M.P. No.39 of 2024

¶35

the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

¶36

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.10523 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class XXI, Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner which is now pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C-XXI, Ranchi, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

¶37

Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 07.02.2023 along with the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.10523 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class XXI, Ranchi inter alia against the petitioner which is now pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C-XXI, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

¶38

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

¶39

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.508 of 2024 stands

¶40

disposed of accordingly.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶42

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19^th of February, 2024 AFR/ Animesh

¶43

Shivam Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Prasad Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Mahto Vs Bokaro Steel Plant through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Abdul Kudus Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Anand Vs the State of Jharkhand