Full Judgment
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2577 of 2015 ----------- 1. Rakesh Kumar Singh, S/o Satya Prakash Singh, at present resident of Vigya Heritage, Dhaulagiri Apartment, Flat No. 2714, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East.
2. Sumyak Kumar Singh @ Somyak Kumar Singh, Son of Arvind Kumar Singh, at present resident of Vigya Heritage, Dhaulagiri Apartment, Flat No. 2714, P.O. & P.S Kadma, Jamshedpur, District-Singhbhum East. …..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Uday Singh, Son of late Ram Bahadur Singh, Resident of 29, Ran Basera, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District-Seraikella- Kharsawan. ….Opposite Parties ----- Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the State : APP For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate ----- 03/28/03.2016 In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 261 of 2015, including the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under sections 342, 347, 386, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. An FIR was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was stated that when he was in his house, the petitioner no. 1, who was his business partner asked him to come out and the accused persons thereafter on the point of revolver took him towards Ranchi and demanded a ransom amount of Rs.5 lacs as well as the transfer of the companies papers in their name. It has been alleged that on receiving few calls from the police station, they returned back and left the informant with a threat that if the police is informed, the informant shall be murdered.
3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Adityapur P.S. Case No. 261 of 2015 was instituted. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and thereafter cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella on 22.07.2015 for the offence punishable under sections 342, 347, 386, 387/34 of the Indian Penal 2 Code.
4. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for O.P. No.
2. 5. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 and the informant are business partners of their company-Anjanaye Ispat Ltd. It has been submitted that the informant and petitioner no. 1 while going to Ranchi to bring money from a businessman as for the last two months the salary was not being paid to the employees and when it was informed that Adityapur Police is searching for the petitioner no. 1, they had returned back. It has further been submitted that the chargesheet was only submitted under section 342, 347/34 of the Indian Penal Code but differing with the chargesheet, cognizance was taken under Section 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code although no such offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned senior counsel further submits that since the petitioner no. 1 and the informant are business partners they have settled their dispute and the informant does not want to proceed further in the case. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the case of Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, reported in (2014) 6 SCC466 6. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has accepted the factum of compromise and has stated that the petitioner no. 1 and the informant, who are business partners, have buried the hatchet and since good relations have been restored between them, the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further in prosecuting the petitioners.
7. Although the matter has been compromised but it is to be seen as to whether in the background of the fact that both sections 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code are non compoundable and whether in such circumstances the entire criminal proceeding can be quashed on the basis of compromise so arrived at. The informant has very categorically stated in the FIR that the petitioner no. 1 is his business partner. After institution of the FIR, the matter has been compromised between both sides leading to filing of I.A. (Cr) No. 1599 of 2016, which is by way of a joint compromise petition. It is to be seen in the context of the case of Narinder Singh & Others (supra) and the factual matrix of the present case to come to a just conclusion. In the 3 case of Narinder Singh & Others (supra), certain principles were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and for the purpose of the present case, some of the said principles are quoted hereinbelow:- “29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 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.”
8. It therefore appears that ultimate consideration to quash a criminal proceeding in a non compoundable offence on the basis of a compromise is to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of court. One of the primary considerations while quashing the entire criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise is the proximity of the settlement with the institution of the case. In the present case as it appears that after institution of the FIR, on investigation, chargesheet was submitted by the police, in which Sections 386 and 387 of the IPC were conspicuously absent. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate differed with the chargesheet and had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 386 and 387 also vide order dated 22.07.2015. The compromise has been effected within a reasonable period from the date of taking cognizance and therefore such circumstance attains some benefits for the accused in getting the quashment of the proceedings. Moreover, it has also to be seen as to whether a harmonious and good relationship has been restored between the parties or not. Coming back to the factual aspect of the case, the informant and the 4 petitioner no. 1 are business partners and therefore the compromise subsequently arrived at plays a dominant role in exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the interest of justice shall be secured if the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioners are quashed.
10. Accordingly, having found merit in this application, the same is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No. 261 of 2015, including the order dated 22.07.2015, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 342, 347, 386, 387 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) Rakesh/