Samant Vikram Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.4069 of 2023

¶2

------

¶3

Samant Vikram Singh, Male, Aged about 36 years, S/o Tejendra Narayan Kunwar, R/o Damuchak, Near ATM, Near Dr. Ambedkar University, PO and PS- Damuchak, Dist- Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001

¶4

Mala Singh @ Mala Devi, Female, Aged about 55 years, W/o Sri Tejendra Narayan Kunwar, R/o Damuchak, Near ATM, Near Dr. Ambedkar University, PO and PS- Damuchak, Dist- Muzaffarpur, Bihar- 842001, Mobile No.- 9810065664

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Nalini Singh, Female, Aged about 35 years, D/o Dr. A. K. Singh, R/o R- 6/6A, at & PO Sail City, New Pundag, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi - 834007

¶9

… Opposite Parties

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate ------ 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 proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial MagistrateXII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2601 of 2021 whereby and

¶14

where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi has found prima facie

¶15

¶16

Cr. M.P. No.4069 of 2023

¶17

case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-2 page No.88 to 98 of the brief which is the certified copy of the joint petition filed by the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 in the family court, Bhubaneswar vide Civil Proceeding No.1007 of 2022 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that the petitioner No.1 and the opposite party No.2 have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved between the parties and in view of the same, the opposite party No.2 is not desirous of continuing with this criminal proceeding. It is next submitted that in view of the full and final 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2601 of 2021, be quashed and set aside.

¶19

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 proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2601 of 2021.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Cr. M.P. No.4069 of 2023

¶23

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

¶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. 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

¶27

¶28

Cr. M.P. No.4069 of 2023

¶29

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 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.

¶31

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 them by not quashing the entire criminal proceeding despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

¶32

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where

¶33

the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated

¶34

¶35

Cr. M.P. No.4069 of 2023

¶36

13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2601 of 2021, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶37

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-XII, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No.2601 of 2021, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶38

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

¶39

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶40

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 23^rd of September, 2024 AFR/ Saroj

¶41

¶42

Cr. M.P. No.4069 of 2023

Samant Vikram Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samant Vikram 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

MD Abid Hussain Alias MD Abid Hussain Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nivesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shaheed Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nirmal Kaur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumari Alias Ghasin And Anr. Vs Most Lalita Devi And Ors.

Harshad Vora Vs the State of Jharkhand