Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 1181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
P.P. BHATT, J.
Shyamashree Sarkar @Shaimoshri Sarkar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No. 2617 of 2014
Decided on : 2.12.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhya Advocate
For the State : A.P.P.
For the O.P. No .2 :Mr.D.K.Prasad Advocate
Acceptance of compromise and lack of support for prosecution can justify the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceeding - The court quashed the entire criminal proceeding based on the compromise reached between the parties, as continuing the trial would be a futile exercise due to lack of support from the opposite party and other witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to quash the criminal proceeding initiated for alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, citing an amicable settlement with the informant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties rendered the continuation of the criminal case futile, as the opposite party and other witnesses would not support the prosecution.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise between the parties justified the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal position established in the judgment of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., which emphasized the acceptance of compromise and quashing of proceedings in similar circumstances.
Final Decision: The court ordered the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding based on the compromise reached between the parties.
The present application is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S Case No. 114 of 2013 corresponding to G.R.Case No. 445 of 2013 initiated for the alleged offence punishable under sections 467/468/471/420/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the informant. Accordingly, compromise petition was filed before the learned court below on 7.8.2014 inter alia stating that the matter has been amicably settled out side the court and now the good and harmonious relation have been restored between the parties and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the informant do not want to proceed with this case further against the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2-informant has filed reply to the present petition filed by the petitions wherein in paragraph-2 onwards of the same it has been stated that compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the informant in connection with Dhanbad Bank More P.S. Case No. 114 of 2013 corresponding to G.R case no. 445 of 2013.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 jointly submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the informant and the petitioner, the continuance of the present criminal case would be a futile exercise of judicial proceedings before the learned court below as the opposite party No.2 and other witnesses will not come forward to support the prosecution case.
5. The learned A.P.P appearing for the State submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties as also in view of the affidavit filed by the O.P. no.2 supporting this fact, appropriate order may be passed in this case.
6. Having regard to the above submission and also in view of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 admitting the contents of the compromise petition, this court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served if the trial of the case continues before the learned court below and it will be a result in futile exercise of judicial proceedings as the opposite party no.2 and other witnesses will not come-forward to support the prosecution case.
7. In view of the aforesaid position as also in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in {2014(3)East Cr.Case 19(SC)}.In paragraph -33 of the said Judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has held :-
“In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under sections 307/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch.It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and love and they are the residents of the same village, the High Court should have accepted the said compromise and quashed the proceedings”.
8. The aforesaid pr
