Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Tiwari Former O/C Kuru Police … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:13716 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1993 of 2022
------
Anil Kumar Tiwari Former O/C Kuru Police Station aged about 40
years, son of Birendra Tiwari, Village-Baulia Ranka, P.O. and P.S.-
Ranka, District-Garhwa, at present R/o Diwakar Nagar, Bariyatu,
P.O. & P.S.-Bariyatu, Ranchi, Distt.-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Uday Kumar Gupta, son of Ramkishor Prasad Gupta, resident of
village-Badki Chanpi, P.O.-Kuru, P.S.-Kuru, District-Lohardaga.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kr. Pathak, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Debopriyo Pal, Advocate
: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ashish Ranjan, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. 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 including the order
taking cognizance dated 04.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.17 of 2022 by which
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga has found prima facie case for
the offences punishable under Section 182, 211, 385, 506 and 120B of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite
party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory
1 Cr. M.P. No.1993 of 2022
( 2025:JHHC:13716 )
Application No.13566 of 2024 which is supported by the separate affidavits of
the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.2/complainant and submit that
therein it has categorically been mentioned that a compromise has been entered
into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2/complainant. It is next
jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after
intervention of the friends as well as the well-wishers and the dispute between
the parties has been settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is
involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy.
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
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
04.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.17 of 2022 which is now pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, be quashed and set aside.
4. 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 including the order taking cognizance dated
04.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.17 of 2022 which is now pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.
5. 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
2 Cr. M.P. No.1993 of 2022
( 2025:JHHC:13716 )
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.
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
3 Cr. M.P. No.1993 of 2022
( 2025:JHHC:13716 )
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)”
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are
not heinous offences nor is there serious offence of mental depravity rather the
same relates to private dispute between the parties.
7. 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.
8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where
the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
04.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.17 of 2022 which is now pending before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga, as prayed for by the petitioner,
be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 04.05.2022 in Complaint Case No.17 of 2022 which is now
4 Cr. M.P. No.1993 of 2022
( 2025:JHHC:13716 )
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga is quashed
and set aside against the petitioner.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.13566 of 2024 stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 05th of May, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
5 Cr. M.P. No.1993 of 2022
[ad_1]
Source link