Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for abetment of suicide and related offences after amicable settlement with the informant. Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir, the High Court held the offences were private in nature with civil flavour, conviction was remote after settlement, and quashed the entire criminal proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. M.P. No.528 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.528 of 2024
------
Both residents of village- Madangundi, P.O. & P.S.Chandwara, District- Koderma … Petitioners
Versus
… Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Addl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate Mr. Deb Nandan Rajak, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1
Cr. M.P. No.528 of 2024
affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioners and the affidavit of the informantopposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, after the intervention of well-wishers, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant has no grievance against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no direct allegation against the petitioners of committing any act, deed or things which could have abetted the commission of suicide of the daughter of the informant-opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and except suspicion, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioners in this case and in view of the fact that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute, no public policy is involved in this case. It is also submitted that the similar case of the co-accused persons, has already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No.307 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No.107 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Koderma, be quashed and set aside.
2
Cr. M.P. No.528 of 2024
Case No.107 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Koderma.
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
as under:-
“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)
“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.
3
Cr. M.P. No.528 of 2024
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)”
not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case; rather the offences involved relates to private dispute between the parties having civil flavour.
4
Cr. M.P. No.528 of 2024
the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th of March, 2024 AFR/ Animesh
5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceeding in Chandwara P.S. Case No.107 of 2023 under Sections 306/504/506/34 IPC could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & AnotherRelied on
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Gian Singh v. State of PunjabExplained
(2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bipin Kumar Das
Pawan Kumar Paswan
The State of Jharkhand
Zulekha Khatun
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court