Cr. M.P. No.2827 of 2023

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No.2827 of 2023

------

Mahesh Hembrom, aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Chhotu

Hembrom, Resident of Village- Medinisarai, P.O.- Dhamni, P.S.-

Madhupur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Premlata Soren, aged about 34 Years, Wife of Shri Mahesh

Hembrom, Daughter of Shri Thudka Soren, Resident of Village-

Medinisarai, P.O.- Dhamni, P.S.- Madhupur, District- Deoghar

(Jharkhand)

…

Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate

For the State

: Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2

: Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate

------

P R E S E N T

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 proceedings including the order

dated 16.09.2009 by which cognizance of the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the

petitioner and also for quashing the order dated 06.03.2018 by which non-

bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner in connection

with Complaint Case No.660 of 2009 corresponding to T.R. No.329 of 2016

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 504, 506,

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Cr. M.P. No.2827 of 2023

2

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite

party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory

Application No.9311 of 2023 which is supported by the separate affidavits of

the complainant/opposite party No.2 and the Pairvikar of the petitioner and

submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have compromised

their dispute outside the court and leading a happy conjugal life after

compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the

dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and no public

policy is involved and the case is predominantly of civil flavour. Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

further

submits

that

because

of

some

misunderstanding and marital discord, this case was instituted against the

petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including

the order dated 16.09.2009 by which cognizance of the offences under Sections

323, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and

also the order dated 06.03.2018 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has

been issued against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of

2009 corresponding to T.R. No.329 of 2016 which is now pending in the court of

learned Judicial Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside.

4.

Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the

compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for

quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 16.09.2009

by which cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 498-A of the Indian

Cr. M.P. No.2827 of 2023

3

Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and also the order dated

06.03.2018 by which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the

petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No.660 of 2009 corresponding to

T.R. No.329 of 2016 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate-1^st Class, Giridih.

5.

Havi