Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari Aged … vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The … on 21 October, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 580 of 2024
----
Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari aged about 63 years, son of
late Dr. Rajendra Tiwari, resident of 81, Old AG Colony, Kadru,
P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi …. Petitioner
— Versus —
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of
Police, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi
2. The Station Incharge, Argora, officiating from his office at
Argora Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi
…. Respondents
With
W.P. (Cr.) No. 588 of 2024
—-
Sunil Tiwari @ Sunil Kumar Tiwari aged about 63 years, son of
late Dr. Rajendra Tiwari, resident of 81, Old AG Colony, Kadru,
P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi …. Petitioner
— Versus —
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of
Police, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and
P.S. Dhurva, District-Ranchi
2. The Station Incharge, Argora, officiating from his office at
Argora Police Station, P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi
…. Respondents
—-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Prashant Pallava, Advocate
Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate
Mrs. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the State :- Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayanan,
Sr. Advocate (through V.C.)
Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III
Mr. Deepankar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III
For the Victim : Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, Advocate
----
C.A.V. on: 03/10/2024 Pronounced on: 21/10/2024
By order dated 31.07.2024 in W.P.(Cr.) No. 580 of 2024 the
Court directed that till the next date charge shall not be framed
against the petitioner in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 229
–1–
of 2021, corresponding to ST/SC Case No. 70 of 2022 and on the
same day by order dated 31.07.2024 considering the submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel for the State, interim protection was granted in
connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 (W.P. (Cr) No.
588 of 2024.
2. Against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(Cr)
No. 580 of 2024 the respondent-State moved before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 012181 of 2024 and against the
order dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(Cr.) No. 588 of 2024 the
respondent-State moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Crl.) No. 012213 of 2024 and by order dated 09.09.2024 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid
SLPs however request was made to the High Court to expeditiously
decide both the cases in accordance with law preferably within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
3. The matter was listed on 09.09.2024 and on that date
the learned counsel for the respondent-State further took two
weeks time for filing counter-affidavit in both the cases and time
was allowed and on 30.09.2024 further request was made by the
respondent-State to take up these matters on 03.10.2024 and time
was allowed and these matters were posted on 03.10.2024.
4. Thereafter both the cases were heard on merit with the
consent of the parties as Arogra P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 is
–2–
consequence F.I.R. of Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 and after
hearing the matters judgements were reserved.
5. Heard Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in both the cases, Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayanan,
learned senior counsel appearing through V.C. along with Mr. Manoj
Kumar and Mr. Deepankar who were present in the Court on behalf
of State and Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for
the Victim.
6. In W.P.(Cr.) No. 580 of 2024 prayer is made for
quashing the order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2022 passed in
connection with F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021
corresponding to ST/SC. Case No. 70 of 2022 whereby the learned
AJC-II-cum-Special Judge (ST/SC), Ranchi has been pleased to take
cognizance for the offence under sections 376(1), 354(A), 354(D),
504, 506 and 509 of the I.P.C. and under section 3(2) (V) (Va) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Further prayer is made for quashing the
chargesheet dated 30.06.2022 and further prayer is made for
quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Argora
P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 corresponding to ST/SC. Case No. 70 of
2022 AJC-II-cum-Special Judge (ST/SC), Ranchi.
7. In W.P.(Cr) No.588 of 2024 prayer is made for
quashing the F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 dated
16th of July, 2024 registered under sections 506 and 34 of I.P.C.
–3–
and section 3(1) (r) and section 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act
pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, ST/SC (Ranchi) and
for stay the investigation.
Facts
8. Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 has been instituted
alleging therein that the informant was assured by one Laxmi
Barula, that she would secure a job of a ‘computer operator’.
However, upon coming to Ranchi she was assigned to house hold
work at the residence of the accused. The Informant used to do the
house hold work at the Petitioner’s house (which included cooking
meals) after which she would attend college.
It is further alleged that the behaviour of the petitioner
was never good with respect to the informant. He gradually started
outraging her modesty.
It is further alleged that whenever the informant would go
to give tea to the Petitioner, he would touch her inappropriately and
have an evil eye on her.
It is further alleged that during the month of March, 2020, at
night, the Petitioner started touching her inappropriately. The
Petitioner was in an intoxicated state. The informant slapped the
petitioner and rushed upstairs but the petitioner came upstairs and
outraged her modesty and also demanded sexual favours. When the
informant started to scream but no one heard her plea and
ultimately Petitioner forced himself upon her. The informant told her
–4–
ordeal to the other staff members.
It is further alleged that in the meantime, the petitioner
started to call the informant and apologize and not to disclose the
incident to anyone. However, the informant left the house of the
accused in the month of July 2020.
It is lastly alleged that whenever the informant would rebuke
the advances of the petitioner, she would be abused in the name of
caste.
Petitioner’s Submission
9. Mr. Prashant Pallava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner in both the cases submitted that earlier the
petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 351 of 2021 which was
dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 31.09.2021. The petitioner
has preferred another criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal (SJ)
No. 403 of 2021 and that appeal was allowed by order dated
08.10.2021 by which the petitioner was granted the privilege of bail.
The petitioner has also filed application under section 482 of Cr.
P.C. being Cr.M.P. No. 2085 of 2021 which was dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 07.07.2022 contianed in annexure 1
series.
10. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner by
inviting the attention of the Court to para 8 of the petition
submitted that the petitioner is the political advisor to Sri Babulal
Marandi, the Ex-Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and the
–5–
current State President of Bhartiya Janta Party who is opponent of
the incumbent ruling party-Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. He further
submitted that it has been initiated by misleading and coercing the
informant as part of an organized conspiracy against the petitioner
due to political vendetta. He then submitted that in August, 2020 a
lady approached Shri Babulal Marandi alleging that she was raped
by the current Chief Minister of The State Of Jharkhand in the year
2013. She filed a complaint before the competent authorities,
however she was coerced to withdraw the same. On request of Shri
Marandi, the petitioner helped the woman by using his own
resources and filed an application being Criminal Writ Petition 177 of
2021 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the petitioner
acted as the ‘parivikar’, on behalf of the lady. However, later that
lady on pressure changed her lawyer and sought for the withdrawal
of writ petition. He further submitted that the petitioner filed an
intervention petition being I.A No. 787 of 2021, which was allowed
and the matter is sub-judice. He then submitted that the petitioner
also filed an application before the Hon’ble Apex Court, praying for
registration of case against the incumbent Chief Minister of The
State of Jharkhand for the atrocities committed by him. He
submitted that because of the steps taken by him as against the
Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand, the entire State machinery
conspired to implicate him in a false case on one pretext or another.
By way of inviting the attention of the Court to annexure-3 he
–6–
submitted that an information was given to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand that he is intervener in a criminal case
before the Bombay High Court and for that he has got information
that false cases will be filed against him. He further submitted
inspite of such letter, no action was taken and finally on the 15th of
August 2021, the informant and her family were illegally detained
by the police with an intention to lodge false case against the
petitioner from the informant. On 16th of August 2021, the
authorities released the family members of the informant, however,
the informant was sent under the custody of the Child Welfare
Committee and only the family members were released that when
the informant agreed to give a statement as against the petitioner
and co-operate in the registration of an FIR against him. By way of
drawing the attention of the court to Annexure-4 of the writ petition
he further submitted that in order to trap the petitioner in another
false and fabricated case, one more innocent girl namely Pushmani
Kumari, was also illegally detained by the police. She was kept at a
house in Kanke along with the informant of the instant case and the
said Pushmani Kumari in her deposition before the Child Welfare
Committee on 16th of August 2021 has categorically stated that she
and the informant of the instant case were kept together and were
being pressurized to give false statements against the petitioner.
He also placed the said statements contained in annexure-4 in
course of argument. He submitted that the entire facts were
–7–
brought to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. However, the
Investigating Officer was predetermined and a chargesheet dated
30th of June 2022, was filed against the petitioner. He further
submitted that the petitioner was cooperating in the investigation
inspite of that chargesheet was submitted and thereafter the
learned court has been pleased to take cognizance by order dated
5th of July 2022 under Section 376(1), 354(A), 354(D), 504, 506
and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(V)(Va) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the petitioner. On these grounds he
submitted that the petitioner is victim of the political vendetta and
all the actions of the investigating authority is at the whims of their
political masters. He submitted that all these happened because the
petitioner has supported a helpless lady on the advice of Sri Babulal
Marandi. He submitted that the informant was working at the
residence of the petitioner and she was treated like the family
members and the education aspect of the informant was also
looked by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner
has already filed petition for discharge before the learned court
however the informant suo motu appeared before the learned court
and filed a petition on 11.07.2024 in which she has stated that she
is not interested in pursuing the said matter against the petitioner
which has been brought on record by way of supplementary
affidavit in a sealed cover. He then submitted that allegations are
–8–
made that in March, 2020 she was abused and she has not raised
her voice and further allegations are made that in July 2022, she
left the house of the petitioner and the F.I.R. being Argora P.S. Case
No. 229 of 2021 was lodged on 16.08.2021. He submitted that on
14.10.2021 medical examination of the girl was made and the
report was in favour of the petitioner and the mobile number of the
petitioner was recovered. Again by way of drawing the attention of
the Court to the statement of another girl before the Child Welfare
Committee and submitted how the false case has been registered
against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has treated
the informant as family member. He submitted that maliciously the
present case has been lodged against the petitioner.
11. He relied in the case of ” Mahmood Ali and others
Vs. State of U.P. and Others” reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
950. He referred to paras 12 and 13 of the said judgment which is
quoted hereinbelow:-
“12. We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls
within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important.
Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the
Inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or
instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and
a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint
is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant
would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such
that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into
the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
–9–
Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of
the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered
over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRS assumes importance, thereby attracting the
issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as
alleged.”
12. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, he submitted that
now the scope of 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been enhanced and if the malicious prosecution is proved
before the High Court, the High Court can pass the order of
quashing.
13. He further relied in the case of ” Vineet Kumar and
others V. State of U.P.” reported in (2017) 13 SCC 369. He
referred to paras 39 and 40 of the said judgement which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
” 39. The fact is that no medical examination was got
done on the date of incident or even on the next day or on 7-11-2015,
when the 10 asked the complainant and her husband to get done the
medical examination. Subsequently it was done on 20-11-2015, which
was wholly irrelevant. Apart from baid assertions made by the
complainant that all the accused have raped her, there was nothing which
could have led the courts to form an opinion that the present case is a fit
case of prosecution which ought to be lätinched. We are conscious that
the statement given by the prosecutrix/complainant under Section 164
CrPC is not to be lightly brushed away but the statement was required to
be considered along with antecedents, facts afid circumstances as poted
above.
40. Reference to the judgment of this Court in Prashant Bharti v. State
(NCT of Delhi)13 is relevant for the present case. In the above case the
complainant lady aged 21 years lodged an FIR under Sections 328 and
354 IPC with regard to the incident dated 15-2-2007. She sent a
telephonic information on 16-2-2007 and on her statement FIR under
Sections 328 and 354 IPC was registered against the appellant. After a
lapse of five days on 21-2-2007 she gave a supplementary statement
alleging rape by the appellant on 23-12-2006, 25-12-2006 and 1-1-2007.
The statement under Section 164 CrPC of the prosecutrix was recorded.
Police filed charge-sheet under Sections 328, 324 and 376 IPC. Charge-
sheet although mentioned that no proof in support of crime under
–10–
Sections 328/354 could be found. However, on the ground of statement
made under Section 164 C:PC charge-sheet was submitted.”
14. He submitted that in view of the above judmgment
and in the fact of the present case no proof of rape is there and
inspite of that it has been registered under several sections of I.P.C.
as well as under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
15. He further relied in the case of “Narinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in (2014) 6
SCC 466. He referred to para 29 and 29.6 of the said judgment
which is as under:-
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up
and lay down the following principles by which the High Coun would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its g power under Section 482 of the Code while
accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated
as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.
However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because
there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed
under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as
to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC For this purpose, it
would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained,
whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/ delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak. In In the former case it can refuse to accept the
settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the a Court can also be swayed by the fact that
the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.”
16. By way of referring the above judgment he submitted
that the High Court can examine as to whether there is strong
–11–
possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak, High Court can pass appropriate order.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied in the
case of “B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and
Another” reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. He referred to para 10
of the said judgment which is as under:-
“10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy considering
the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court
held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is
entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends
of justice so require was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on
which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify
the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and
that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though
justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the
legislature. This Court said that the compelling necessity for making
these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and
purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the
High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be
impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable
likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would
happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the
imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed,
now she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance
due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may
be many reasons for not supporting the imputations. It may be either
for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his
other family members and as a result thereof she has again started
living with her husband with whom she earlier had differences or she
has willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has
married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by
divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some
other similar grounds. In such eventuality, there would be almost be no
chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties
to compound non-compoundable offences? The answer clearly has tobe
in the “negative”. It would, however, be a different matter if the High
Court on facts declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons
including lack of bona fides.”
18. Relying on the above judgment he submitted that in
the interest of justice the materials on which the structure of the
prosecution rests the High Court can quash the proceeding.
19. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the
–12–
case of ” Shivam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and
Others” reported in MANU/MP/0452/2024 and submitted
that on the basis of settlement even if POCSO case is there the
High Court quashed the proceeding. However, in the case in hand,
the petitioner has not settled the dispute by way of filing any
petition rather the informant has suo motu appeared before the
learned court as such the case of the petitioner is more merit and in
view of that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.
20. With regard to W.P.(Cr) No. 588 of 2024 he submitted
that Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 was registered on 16.07.2024
under sections 506 and 34 of I.P.C. and section 3(1) (r) and section
3 (1) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act alleging therein that the informant had
written alleged letter to the public prosecutor claiming that she and
known relatives were being harassed by the petitioner including the
police personnel to influence the outcome of Argora P.S. Case No.
229 of 2021 corresponding to ST/SC. Case No. 70 of 2022 and in
the light of that the public prosecutor of the trial case has lodged
the F.I.R. He submitted that genesis of the above F.I.R. was the
Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021. He again repeated the same
ground with regard to malicious prosecution which has been taken
in the first writ petition. He further submitted that informant has
filed a petition in which she has stated that she is not ready to
pursue the matter any further. The said petition was filed on
11.07.2024 before the learned court. The petitioner applied for the
–13–
certified copy which has been brought on record by way of filing
supplementary affidavit in the first writ petition. He further
submitted that on the basis of letter of F.I.R. dated 26.06.2024
wherein the informant has appeared before the learned court on
11.07.2024 stating that she does not want to proceed with the case
and the case was lodged on misunderstanding. On this
background, he submitted that the second F.I.R. itself is malicious
that too it has been filed under the Indian Penal Code which has
been repealed by Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, 2023 w.e.f.
01.07.2024 wherein the F.I.R. was registered on 16.07.2024. He
submitted that registration of F.I.R under the I.P.C. further
strengthens the case of the petitioner as second F.I.R. is also
malicious in view of above the entire criminal proceeding in both the
cases may kindly be quashed including chargesheet and order
taking cognizance. He further submitted by way of making stress
made in the complaint dated 26.06.2024 to the effect by the
informant that it is her signature and she knows it. The said
certificate made in a complaint made by the complainant on her
signature further proves that in absence of any complaint by her by
way of manufacturing the said letter the second F.I.R. has been
lodged and in view of that entire criminal proceeding may kindly be
quashed.
Respondent-Victim Submission
21. Mr. Amrendra Pradhan, learned counsel appeared suo
–14–
motu on behalf of the victim by way of filing vakalatnama and
submitted that he has got instruction that informant does not want
to pursue Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 and application with
regard to same has been filed before the learned court on affidavit
dated 11.07.2024 and the victim has no grievance against the
petitioner that is disclosed in paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit.
He further submitted that said application has been brought on
record by way of filing supplementary affidavit by the petitioner. He
further submitted that with regard to second F.I.R. which is subject
matter of Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 the victim has stated
that she does not want to proceed with the case and contents of
F.I.R. is denied which is disclosed in paras 4 and 5 of the counter
affidavit. He further submitted that it is further disclosed therein
that neither the petitioner nor any person tried to contact the
informant with respect to Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 or any
other purpose either directly or indirectly. He submitted that in both
the cases the informant is not willing to proceed. On these grounds,
he submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in both the cases
may kindly be quashed.
Respondent-State Submission
22. On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayanan,
learned senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent-
State through Video Conferencing along with Mr. Manoj Kumar and
Mr. Deepankar who were present in the Court.
–15–
23. Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayanan, learned senior counsel
for the respondent-State submitted that this is not trial. This petition
is meant for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. He
submitted that the statement made under sections 164 Cr.P.C. and
under section 161 Cr.P.C. are there. The call data records including
the exchanges medical report is against the petitioner and looking
all these aspects and the charagesheet the learned court has been
pleased to take cognizance. He submitted that the judgments relied
by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. By way of
referring the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of ” Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported
in (2012) 10 SCC 303 he submitted that if serious offence like
rape, murder or dacoity etc or offences of mental depravity under
the I.P.C or offence of moral turpitude or special statutes are there
on the compromise the cases cannot be quashed. He referred to
para 58 and 61 of the said judgment which reads as under:-
“58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim
has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as
in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in
futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the
parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts
which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that
seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe
to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the
dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet
certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without
permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences
of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal
sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile,
commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the
–16–
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or
the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the
offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably,
irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent
power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it
is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be
defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be
prescribed.
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 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 pre-dominatingly 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. In
this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete 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.”
24. Relying on the above judgment he submitted that in
–17–
the nature of crime of the present case, the case is not fit to be
quashed. He then submitted that victim’s statement has got no
value in the crime like this. He submitted that not only I.P.C.
sections even Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act are there and cognizance is also there under section
3(2) (V) (Va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On this background, he further
submitted that if a hint of compulsion of force is there no relief can
be granted as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of “Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh” (2022)
13 SCC 635. He referred to paras, 15, 16 and 19 of the said
judgement which is quoted hereinbelow:-
“15. The Constitution Bench decision in Supreme Court
Bar Assn. v. Union of India has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
(SCC p. 432, para 48)
“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing
complete justice “between the parties in any cause or matter pending
before it”, The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits
for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot
disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to
balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating
parties by “ironing out the creases” in a cause or matter before it.
Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-
settling. It is well. recognised and established that this Court has always
been a law-maker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-settling. It
is a “problem-solver in the nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union
of India) but the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the
subject-matter of a given case cannot be altogether ignored by this
Court, while making an order under Article 142. Indeed, these
constitutional powers cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant to be
exercised when their exercise may come directly in conflict with what
has been expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly with the
subject.”
(emphasis in original)
16. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes
such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its
approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of
indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the
–18–
depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various
atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The courts have to be mindful of
the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express
constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the
Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of
these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and
rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.
19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the courts
ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim
has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and
not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since
members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the
weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion,
and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the
courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to
the accused party. What factors the courts should consider, would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
25. Relying on the above judgment he submitted that in a
case like this where Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is there even the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that quashing cannot be made. He then submitted
that Argora P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 was registered on 16.08.2021
and the allegations of threatening is there. He submitted that while
the petitioner was granted bail and he was asked to remain out of
Jharkhand. He then submitted that chargesheet was submitted on
30.06.2022 in which the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. and
161 Cr.P.C. was considered and even the CFSL report and call
record was analyzed and multiple conversation was there and
pursuant to that chargesheet was submitted. He submitted that
cognizance was taken on 05.07.2022 in the first F.I.R. and after
three years the present quashing application has been filed on
19.07.2024. On 24.04.2022 the public prosecutor prayed for framing
of charge and on 26.06.2024 the complainant wrote to the public
prosecutor of threatening pursuant to that second F.I.R. was
–19–
registered being Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024.
26. He submitted that the affidavit was sworn on
10.07.2024 and on 11.07.2024 the Public Prosecutor informed the
Court of influence and on 11.07.2024 the complainant filed petition
for withdrawing the complaint. He further submitted that second
F.I.R. was registered by the State with regard to threatening which
is subject matter of second writ petition. He further drew the
attention of the Court to page 24 of the second writ petition and
submitted that complaint is made with regard to influence made by
the petitioner for money and lobbying also. He further drew the
attention of the Court to page 27 which is part of F.I.R and
submitted that she has certified that signature is of her and she
knows the signature. On this ground he submitted that entire
criminal proceeding may not be quashed as materials are there on
record and the chargesheet has been submitted which can be
subject matter of trial. He further submitted that belatedly the writ
petition is filed the and same is fit to be dismissed.
Petitioner’s Submission
27. In reply Mr. Pallava, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the signature is ante dated in the second F.I.R. of
the complainant in the second writ petition and in view of that
second case has also been filed maliciously.
Analysis
28. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel
–20–
for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the
record which are subject matter of the aforesaid two writ
petitions. It is stated that on introduction by some person the
informant was engaged in the house of the petitioner for domestic
work whereas the petitioner was residing along with his wife who
always remained there and children were outside and they used to
come. The informant stated that after such work she used to go to
St. Paul College to study. It is alleged the behavior of the petitioner
was not good with the informant. Further allegations are made of
molestation. It is further disclosed that at the residence of the
petitioner Sham Hasha, Pushmani, Manoj Kachhap, Suliyas, Birbal
and Bikram were also remain there and they were doing the
domestic work. Allegations are made of certain incident in March,
2020. The allegation is also made of rape and she left the house in
July, 2020. It is alleged thereafter the petitioner was again calling
her and the caste name was taken by the petitioner. On this
background the F.I.R. was registered on 16.08.2021. From the
statement of the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that she left the house in
July, 2020 wherein the F.I.R. was registered on 16.08.2021.
29. It was pointed out in course of argument that statement
is also made in para 8 (A to F) that this petitioner happened to be
political advisor of the then Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand.
On the request of a lady who has come for help Mr. Marandi has
asked the petitioner to help her pursuant to that writ petition was
–21–
filed against the present Chief Minister which was subsequently
withdrawn by way of changing the lawyer in which the petitioner
filed the intervener petition which was allowed and that matter is
still pending. The petitioner has also filed petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against the incumbent Chief Minister of
State of Jharkhand. It is further disclosed that one Pushpani Kumari
who is also kept in the house along with the informant has stated
before the Child Welfare Committee that she along with the
informant were pressurized to make false statement against the
petitioner contained in annexure-4 to the writ petition and that has
not been denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-
State and only it is stated that the same is self declaratory
statement which is required to be proved before the trial court.
Thus, enmity and political vendetta are prima facie there which
further strengthens in the light of non-denial by the State of the
statement made in para 8 (A to F) of the writ petition. Annexure-3
is a document addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State of
Jharkhand apprehending false cases to be filed against the
petitioner due to help made by him to a lady.
30. The informant on affidavit had filed the petition before
the learned court on 11.07.2024 after serving a copy to the Special
P.P. of SC/ST stating that due to misunderstanding without
understanding the veracity of the allegation, the Argora P.S. Case
No. 229 of 2021 was filed on 16.08.2021 and the informant has got
–22–
no grievance and she does not want to pursue and contest the
present case being ST/ST Case No. 70/2022 arising out of Argora
P.S. Case No. 229 of 2021 which was affidavited on 10.07.2024.
This has been filed suo motu by the informant before the trial court.
This is not a case that by way of compromise that petition was filed
on behalf of the petitioner and the informant. Mr. Pradhan, learned
counsel appeared on behalf of the victim-girl suo motu and he
has stated by way of filing the counter affidavit in both the cases
that the victim-girl does not want to proceed further and she has
filed the petition before the learned court which is disclosed in para
4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the informant. Thus, it is
crystal clear that maliciously the present case has been filed and
consequently Argora P.S. Case No. 180 fo 2024 has been filed which
is the consequence of the present case. The second case is lodged
on 16.07.2024 and it was lodged under section 504 and 34 of
Indian Penal Code wherein I.P.C. was repealed with effect from
01.07.2024 by way of new Act namely, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sahinta, 2023 which further strengthens the case of the petitioner
that in haste manner second F.I.R. was registered as the Act which
was not in existence against in that case, the case was registered.
Further the complaint is dated 26.06.2024 wherein the F.I.R. was
registered on 16.07.2024 at the behest of the A.P.P. Pecularily if a
complaint is there in the signature of the complainant dated
26.06.2024 there was no need of certifying her signature by herself
–23–
to the effect that this is her signature and she knows that signature
and that is dated 16.07.2024 which further raises a question as to
why such certification is there if the complaint is already there in
the signature of the informant. Thus, it appears that second F.I.R. is
also registered in a mechanical way without application of mind
only to make out a case of more complication so that the petitioner
may not come out from the case.
31. In view of above discussions, the Court is required to
consider in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the victim-girl and respondent-State as to
whether at this Stage the Court can quash the entire criminal
proceeding or not.
32. There is no doubt if a case is made out the High Court
is not required to roam into to come to a conclusion that the case is
not made out. However, at the same time if malicious prosecution
is made and if the High Court will not interfere it will further amount
abuse of process of law for that the High Court is having more
responsibility to read the things in between the line so that any
innocent person may not put to harassment and face a trial. The
Court is in agreement with the judgment relied by the learned
counsel for the respondent-State in the case of “Gian Singh”
(supra). There is no doubt that if a serious crime is there and only
on the basis of settlement it cannot be quashed which was the
ratio in the case of “Gian Singh” (supra). But in the case in hand
–24–
it transpires that the petitioner has not settled the dispute with the
informant by way of filing any compromise petition. The informant
suo motu appeared before the learned court and filed petition if a
such position is there it cannot be said that on the basis of
compromise between the parties the said petition has been filed
that too in a case of a background of a chequered history as
discussed hereinabove.
33. Much having argued on behalf of the respondent-
State that the persons coming within the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are being influenced
their innocence and on the basis of that case are being
compromised which cannot be said that the SC/ST (POA) Act is not
attracted for that the learned counsel for the State as relied in the
case of “Ramavatar (supra) and rightly the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in para 19 of the said judgment has held that even a hint of
compulsion or force is there, no relief can be given to the accused
party. However, in the same case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
been pleased to quash the criminal proceeding on the basis of
compromise. In the case in hand there is no compromise petition
and suo motu this application has been filed by the informant. The
Court finds that there is no iota of evidence to suggest that the
petitioner has compelled or forced the informant to file such
application before the learned court. Thus, the case of
“Ramavatar” (supra) has not much helped to the respondent-
–25–
State.
34. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahmood Ali (supra) that the Court can look into the
F.I.R. that court owes a duty to look into the F.I.R. with care and a
little more closely and while exercising power under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into
account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in
the course of investigation.
35. In the case in hand for the alleged allegations of
March, 2020, the F.I.R. was registered on 16.08.2021. What has
been disclosed that this petitioner has helped a lady against the
sitting Chief Minister of the State of the Jharkhand and that is why
all this trap has been made and that is not denied in the counter-
affidavit which clearly suggests that maliciously the present case
has been registered against the petitioner.
36. Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not to be lightly brushed away
but the statement was required to be considered along with
antecedents., facts and circumstances as having held in the case of
” Vineet Kumar” (supra). It is further held in the case of
“Narinder Singh” (supra) in para 29 and 29.6 that on the basis
of prima facie analysis if the High Court can examine as to
whether there is strong possibility of conviction or the chances of
–26–
conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse
to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings
whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court
to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties.
37. It is well settled that the Investigating Officer must
make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet.
38. The Court has looked into chargesheet which has been
brought on record. There is no mention on which date and what
time the victim was sent for medical examination. When the report
of medical examination was issued is not mentioned. Mobile of the
petitioner and victim was sent for data recovery and data was
recovered however, details of that is not disclosed in the
chargesheet. The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2021 and sent
to judicial custody. It was disclosed in the chargesheet that mobile,
dongal and SIM was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
however discussion is not there of nature of the finding of the said
laboratory. The account of the victim is mentioned however there is
no disclosure of balance and transaction of the said account. This
aspect of the matter has been recently considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another” reported in 2024
Livelaw (SC) 337 wherein paras 20 and 31 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
–27–
“20. There is an inherent connect between the
chargesheet submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, cognisance
which is taken under Section 190 of the Code, issue of process and
summoning of the accused under Section 204 of the Code, and
thereupon issue of notice under Section 251 of the Code, or the charge
in terms of Chapter XVII of the Code. The details set out in the
chargesheet have a substantial impact on the efficacy of procedure at
the subsequent stages. The chargesheet is integral to the process of
taking cognizance, the issue of notice and framing of charge, being the
only investigative document and evidence available to the court till that
stage. Substantiated reasons and grounds for an offence being made in
the chargesheet are a key resource for a Magistrate to evaluate whether
there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance, Initiating
proceedings, and then issuing notice, framing charges etc.
31. Therefore, the investigating officer must make clear and complete
entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly
understand which crime has been committed by which accused and
what is the material evidence available on the file. Statements under
section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed
with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime
should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each
of the accused persons.”
39. In view of above discussions, it transpires that
maliciously the case has been investigated as petitioner has helped
one lady against the allegation of incumbent sitting Chief Minister
which is disclosed in para 8(b) of the writ petition which has not
been denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State
which clearly suggests that maliciously the case has been registered
against the petitioner and the investigation was also made with pre-
occupied mind.
40. In the above background of the present case the Court
finds that when the informant herself is not supporting the case and
there is no chance of conviction.
41. In the case of “Parbat Bhai Aahir V. State of
Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that the F.I.R. should not be quashed in case of rape as it is an
heinous offence but when the respondent/complainant herself takes
–28–
the initiative and file affidavits before the Court, stating that she
made the complaint due to some mis-understanding and now wants
to give guietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the
petitioner and respondent in my considered opinion in such cases,
there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial ultimately, if
such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of
the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted.
42. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case,
however, keeping in view the application filed by the informant, this
Court is inclined to quash the entire criminal proceeding which are
subject matter of the writ petition as no useful purpose would be
served in prosecuting the petitioner any further.
43. The Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article
226 of the Constitution of India have wide power to quash the
proceedings even in non-compoundable offences in order to
prevent abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice
notwithstanding bar under section 320 of Cr.P.C. Exercise of power
in a given situation will depend on facts of each case. The duty of
the Court is not only to decide a lis between the parties after a
protracted litigation but is a vital and extraordinary instrument to
maintain and control social order. Resolution of dispute by way of
compromise between two warring groups should be encouraged
unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of
–29–
society or would promote savagery, as held by Five Judges Bench
of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of
“Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and
Another” reported in (2007) 59 All IND Cases 435 (P&H)
wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under :
” 36. In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney V. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and
others., Hon’ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of
compromise in the following words:-
The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite
falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.
37.The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every
judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted
perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and
circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise
of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning
the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice.
38. No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C.,
or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.”
44. Further, it is well settled that even after filing of the
chargesheet if case of quashing is made out the Court can exercise
the said power of quashing the entire criminal proceeding.
Reference may be made to the case of ” Anand Kumar Mohatta
Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi” (2019)11 SCC 706 wherein para
14 and 16 it has been held as under”-
“14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge-sheet is
filed, petition for quashing of F.I.R. is untenable. We do not see any
merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in
Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat.
16. There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts
the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process
of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is
settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. even when the discharge application is
pending with the trial court. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that
proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the
stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have
materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that
the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has
taken the form of a chargesheet after investigation. The power is
undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any
court.”
–30–
45. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat”
(2011) 7 SCC 59, A.M. Mohan Vs. State” 2024 SCC Online
339, Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs. State of Uttarakhand”
2024 SCC Online SC 136.
46. This aspect has been recently considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Kailashben
Mahendrabhai Patel and others” Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Anr.” in Criminal Appeal No. 4003/2024 arising out of
SLP (CRL) No. 4044/2018 reported in 2024 INSC 737.
47. The case of the petitioner is coming within the
criteria of “State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal” 1992 Supp. 1 SCC
335. The criteria no. 7 of para 102 clearly attracted the facts of
the present case as maliciously both the cases have been lodged
against the petitioner with ulterior motive which reads as under:-
“102(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.”
48. So far Criminal (SJ) No. 351 of 2021 filed by the
petitioner is concerned, it was simply dismissed as withdrawn by
order dated 13.09.2021. By order dated 08.10.2021 Criminal Appeal
(SJ) No. 403 of 2021 the petitioner was allowed bail. Cr.M.P. No.
2085 of 2021 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty vide order
dated 07.07.2022 and it was withdrawn as chargesheet was
–31–
submitted. Thus, on merit all these petitions have not been decided
liberty was provided.
49. In the second F.I.R. Sections 3 (1) (r) and (s) of SC/ST
(POA) Act is added. Hurling of abuses as obtained under Section
3(1)(r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act is required to be noticed.
Section 3(l)(r) of the Atrocities Act directs that the abuses should be
hurled in the public place; Section 3(l)(s) directs that the abuses
should be hurled in the place of public view. Therefore, the abuses
should be either in the public place or in the place of public view.
Therefore, the very complaint itself is so frivolous that no further
proceedings should be permitted to be continued. Even otherwise,
the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, at paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and
18, has held as follows:
“11. It may be stated that the charge-sheetfiled is for an offence
under Section 3(l)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by
Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision
is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:
“3.(l)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view;”
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(l)(r) of the Act
can be classified as “(1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and (2) in any place within public view”.
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the
ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All
insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act
unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve
the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an
offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the
vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations
and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the
parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment.
Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked
–32–
jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent 2 has invoked the
jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies
in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that
Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in
“any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public
view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment
reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC
435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between
the expression “publicplace” and “in any place within public view”. It was
held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members ofthe public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public
view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated
below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e,
and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:-
“Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then
also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.”]. The Court
held as under : (SCC pp. 443- 44, para 28)
“28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first
informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a
“chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of
the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public
view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It
could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view.
However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn
outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place
within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.
We must, therefore, not confuse the expression
“place within public view” with the expression “public place A place can
be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a
public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by
the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha
or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private
bodies.”
(emphasis in original)
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that
the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that
the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating
over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a
person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
50. Reference being made to another judgment of the Apex
Court which bears consideration in Hitesh Verma’s case, (supra)
in the case of GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF A.P.” reported in
–33–
(2008) 12 SCC 531 is apposite wherein the Apex Court holds as
under:
“5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if
all the allegations incorporated in the complaint are taken as true, even
then, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under
Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. As far as Section 3(l)(x)
of the Act is concerned, it reads as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.– (1) Whoever, not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,–
(i)-(ix) xx.xxxxx
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view;”
Scope and ambit of courts powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
12. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit
of courts powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent
power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the
administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the
process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. though wide have to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such
exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section
itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any
abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the
court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by
invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.
Discussion of decided cases
13. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the courts have
consistently taken the view that they must use this extraordinary power
to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The English courts
have also used inherent power
to achieve the same objective. It is generally agreed that the Crown
Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse.
In Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Devlin stated that
where particular criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process,
the court is empowered to refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to
trial. Lord Salmon in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys tressed
the importance of the inherent power when he observed that it is only if
the prosecution amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is
oppressive and vexatious that the Judge has the power to intervene. He
further mentioned that the courts power to prevent such abuse is of
great constitutional importance and should be jealously preserved.”
51. In the light of the afore-narrated judgment of the Apex
Court, if the case at hand is considered, as observed hereinabove,
–34–
the hurling of abuses is neither in a public place nor in a place of a
public view. Apart from the said fact, the timing of the complaint is
required to be noticed. The litigations initiated by the complainant
for which she has become disgruntled has sought to misuse the
provisions and abuse the process of law, only to wreck vengeance .
It is due to the cases of this nature where the provisions of the Act
are grossly misused engaging the Courts of law, at times, genuine
complaints of people who have actually suffered such abuses, would
go into the oblivion. In the light of the facts narrated hereinabove,
the judgment of the Apex Court in Hitesh Verma, (supra) and
Gorige Pentaiah(supra) would become applicable to the case at
hand on all its fours.
50. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court
has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that if the criminal
proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioner the same
will be abuse of process of law.
53. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Court
allowed the present writ petitions and quashed the entire criminal
including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2022 and the
chargesheet dated 30.06.2022 in connection with Argora P.S. Case
No. 229 of 2021 corresponding to ST/SC. Case No. 70 of 2022 and
also quashed the entire criminal proceeding and the F.I.R. being
Argora P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024 dated 16th of July, 2024 pending
in the Court of learned Special Judge, ST/SC (Ranchi).
–35–
54. Both these writ petitions are allowed and disposed of
in above terms. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 21st of October, 2024
Satyarthi/A.F.R.
–36–