The FIR can be quashed in cases where there exists no chance of conviction of the accused person: The High Court of Jharkhand

 Cr.M.P. No. 021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI Krishna Ballam Tiwary @ Krishna Ballabh Tiwari aged about 61 years s o late Laxman Tiwari resident of House No.203 Panki Road Baralota PO Baralota PS Daltonganj District Palamau….. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Govind Kachhap son of not known to the petitioner resident Engineer Water Supply And Sanitation Division Medninagar Palamau PO and PS Medninagar District Palamau …... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal Advocate For the O.P.No.2 : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav APP 7 02.08.2021 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Vishal the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Vaibhav the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID 19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the First Information Report of Palamau SC ST P.S.Case No.09 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341 323 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC ST Act Palamau at Daltonganj. 4. On the written report of the informant Govind Kachhap the case was registered alleging therein that the petitioner has abused him by naming his caste and also assaulted by fists and slaps and also thrown chairs of the office and that for the aforesaid sections the F.I.R was lodged. Mr. Indrajit Sinha the learned counsel appearing alongwith his junior Mr. Ankit Vishal the learned vice counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that now the matter has been compromised between the O.P.No.2 and the petitioner and for that one I.A. being I.A. No.1653 of 2021 has been filed. Mr. Kumar Vaishav the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2 submits that there is a compromise and there is no societal interest is involved in the case and in that view of the matter it can be quashed. He submits that the said I.A is also supported by affidavit of the O.P.No.2 namely Govind Kachhap. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of “Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab” reported in 2013 1 SCC Cr.160 the case stands covered and the FIR can be quashed. He further relied in the case of “Shiji v. Radhika” reported in10 SCC 705 and submits that it is well settled principle that in the cases where there is no chance of conviction against the accused and if the entire exercise of trial is continued to be exercised in futility the Court can interfere. He relied in paragraph no.17 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow: “17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 CrPC on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320 the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 CrPC.” He further submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of public view in the case so far as SC ST Act is concerned in the case of “Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttrakhand” reported in10 SCC 710. Paragraph nos.14 and 15 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “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. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” 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 of the public are there then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar the insulted by informant was Appellants 2 and 3 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 lane outside the someone from the road or 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 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 municipalityor gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State and not by private persons or private bodies.” 15. As per the FIR the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the publicat the time of the incident in the house. Therefore the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and or charge sheet.” 9. In view of the above and considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the O.P.No.2 and also looking into the I.A. being I.A. No.1653 of 2021 supported by the affidavit of O.P.No.2 the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no societal interest involved and there is no chance of conviction in view of the further development as it has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases stated supra. Accordingly the entire criminal proceeding as well as the F.I.R of Palamau SC ST P.S.Case No.019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 341 323 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(d) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC ST Act Palamau at Daltonganj is quashed and set Cr.M.P. No.01 of 2021 as well as I.A.No.1653 of 2021 stand allowed and disposed of. I.A. pending if any also stands disposed of. aside. SI 

Summary: In a criminal case where the victim and the accused person have arrived at a compromise and there are no other witnesses to the alleged crime, there is no chance of a conviction happening. In such cases, the first information report may be quashed as there is no point in the criminal trial being conducted. This was held by a single member bench of the High Court of Jharkhand consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi in the case of Krishna Ballam Tiwary v The State of Jharkhand [Cr. M.P. No. 01of 2021] on 2nd August 2021. As per the informant’s report, the petitioner, Krishna Ballam Tiwary verbally abused the informant using his caste and also slapped, punched and threw chairs at him. A first information report was registered against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for wrongful restraint, causing hurt, provocation and criminal intimidation as well as Section 3(1)(d) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 for garlanding with footwear and nakedly parading a member of an SC/ST Community. The present petition has been filed before the court by the petitioner for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as well as the first information report of the SC/ST Case No. 09 of 2019. Without going into the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner’s counsel brought to the notice of the court that a compromise had been reached between the informant who is the opposite party No. 2 in this case and the petitioner. The informant’s counsel submitted that this agreement was also supported by the informant. The case of Gyan Singh v State of Punjab [2013 1 SCC Cr.160] was cited where the court held that an FIR could be quashed in cases where there was no chance of the accused person being convicted. The High Court noted that in the immediate case, since no one else had witnessed the alleged crimes of the petitioner and a compromise has been reached between the petitioner and the informant, there was no chance of the petitioner being convicted if the criminal trial had to carry on.