Kamlesh Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi , J

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Md. Faiyaj Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Tisra P.S. Case No.74/2021 dated 07.11.2021 which was registered under sections 323, 341, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC and under section 3(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, 6th cum Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in S.C./ST Case No.95 of 2021.

The case was filed by the O.P.No.2 alleging therein about altercation and addressing the informant in filthy language.

The Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that now a good sense has prevailed between the parties and both the parties have compromised the matter. He submits that this is a case between two individuals and there is no societal interest involved and for quashing the case on the point of compromise I.A. No.4798 of 2022 has been filed which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the O.P.No.2.

Md. Faiyaj Alam, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has appeared. He submits that compromise has been taken place and he submits that the O.P.No.2 does not want to proceed in the case.

In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, a reference may be made to the case of “Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another”, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 for exercising inherent power to quash the criminal proceeding involving non-compoundable offence in view of compromise which has been arrived between the parties as held in paragraph no.29(2) and paragraph 29(5) of the said judgment, is as under:

“29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the quiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

xxx xxx xxx

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.”

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the compromise matter. The case arising out of SC/ST Act. In the case of “Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh” [Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2011] wherein at paragraph no.16, it has been observed as follows:

“16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

In view of the above facts and considering the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another” and “Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh” (supra), the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Tisra P.S. Case No.74/2021 dated 07.11.2021, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, 6th cum Special Judge, SC/ST, Dhanbad in S.C./ST Case No.95 of 2021 is quashed.

The petition [Cr.M.P.No.1509 of 2022] is allowed and stands disposed of.

I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.