Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Jay Prakash Gupta @ Jayprakash Gupta @ Jai Prakash Gupta @ Rinku – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 3323 of 2023
Decided on : 01-11-2023
Section 482 Cr.P.C - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 506, 385, 170, 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guiding principles for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties. Key legal provisions such as the nature and gravity of the crime, distinction between private and heinous offences, and the impact on society were highlighted. The court's decision was influenced by the complete voluntary settlement between the offender and the victim, leading to the remote possibility of conviction and the absence of heinous or serious offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR and order taking cognizance, based on a compromise between the parties. The occurrence stemmed from a heated exchange between the petitioner and the informant over a vehicle overtaking incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had reached a complete voluntary settlement, and the chance of conviction was remote and bleak. The offences were not heinous, and the genesis of the occurrence was a private dispute. Therefore, the court concluded that the criminal proceeding should be quashed and set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the impact of the compromise on the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the complete voluntary settlement between the parties, the remote possibility of conviction, and the absence of heinous or serious offences. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the offences and the impact on society.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR and order taking cognizance, based on the complete voluntary settlement between the parties and the remote possibility of conviction.
JUDGMENT :
Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the FIR in connection with T. Tangar P.S. Case No.38 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 401 of 2023 and also to quash the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned C.J.M., Simdega as well as to quash the further proceedings of the said case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards the Interlocutory Application No.9941 of 2023 which is supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the opposite party No.2 and submits that therein it has been mentioned that due to intervention of well-wishers and friends, compromise has taken place between the parties and presently no dispute is existing between them. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that the informant is the owner of a dumper and while the informant along with driver was going in the said dumper, the petitioner who was travelling in a Innova vehicle with the co-accused persons, overtook him and there was a heated exchange of words between them regarding the overtaking and at the heat of the moment, the case was instituted. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in fact, no offence of robbery has been committed and the non-occurrence of the offence of robbery; has been found by the police after due investigation of the case. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-2 at page Nos.21-28 of the brief, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that police after due investigation of the case, has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 506, 385, 170 and 34 of Indian Penal Code only but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without any application of mind and without any speaking order has differed from the Final Form submitted by the police and has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code as well. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the criminal case; hence the chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is involved in the case and the occurrence is a private dispute between the parties.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of 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, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 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
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on a complete voluntary settlement between the parties, especially in ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the offences, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction are crucial factors in deciding whether to quash the crim....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court has the jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings based on compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity ....
Offences under Section 307 IPC are serious and heinous, lacking the possibility of being quashed based on private compromise. Hence, societal interest in prosecuting such crimes prevails.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even in non-compoundable cases, based on genuine compromises, considering the natu....
High Court can quash non-compoundable FIRs under Section 482 when parties reach amicable settlements, preserving justice and avoiding abuse of process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
