Dharampal Pratap Sinha v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CR.M.P. No. 842 of 2018 Dharampal Pratap Sinha, S/o. Shri Dharamchand Pratap Sinha, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. 74-Aam Bagicha, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Ganj, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Snigdha Tiwari, D/o. Shri Pradeep Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. HIG 124, Block-6, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 :

Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 16.05.2018 Heard 1.

The present petition is to quash the FIR registered at Police StationGanj, Raipur, in a Crime No.91/2018 for the offence under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code.

2.

As per the FIR, a report was made by the respondent No.2 that she had a friendship with the petitioner in the year 2013, thereafter, both were talking terms to each other. Subsequently, the petitioner wanted to marry the respondent No.2, which on having refused, she was put under threat that if an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs was not paid, her image would be tarnished. Subsequently, after her marriage, the petitioner started calling to the respondent No.2 and on 27.03.2018 while she was returning from her official duty, she was stopped and an amount of

Rs.1 Lakh was further asked for, therefore, the report was made. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were in friendship relation and because of some mutual misunderstanding the report has been made. It is further submitted that now that misunderstanding is over. He further submits that the statement of the respondent No.2 is recorded wherein she stated that she do not want to continue with her report, therefore, the FIR registered under Crime No.91/2018 for the offence under Section 384 I.P.C may be quashed.

4.

Learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent No.2 also supports the contention and would submit that the complainant do not want to continue with the FIR registered at Police Station Ganj, Raipur, as they have settled their dispute.

5.

The statement of the complainant/ respondent No.2 was recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial). The statement would show that compromise has been effected in between the accused & complainant and she do not want to continue with her report, which was made against the petitioner and she is conscious of the fact; therefore, she submits that the proceeding of FIR in Crime No.91/2018 for the offence under Section 384 of I.P.C. may be quashed. 6.

The respondent No.2 is present before the Court and she was crossexamined by the State counsel. 7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another1 has laid down the following principles : "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different (2012) 10 SCC 303

from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.

cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc.

or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.

8.

Further, in case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.2 their Lordship again reiterated the view taken in case of Gian Singh (supra) and has laid down the following propositions :

"15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions :

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or (2017) 9 SCC 641

complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and (x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

9.

Considering the submission made by the counsel for the parties and the statement which is recorded before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases, I am inclined to quash the FIR registered under Crime No.91/2018 at Police Station- Ganj, Raipur against the petitioner for the offence under Section 384 of I.P.C. 10.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered in Crime No.91/2018 at Police Station- Ganj, Raipur for the offence under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner is hereby quashed and he is acquitted of the charges.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok