High Court quashes cognizanece order by Trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C

"If the offences which are absolutely private in nature, having no impact upon society, are brought to the notice of the Court and it is found that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the litigation of that kind pending, the invocation and exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified."

-Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Patna High Court in Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2021)

Relying on Supreme Court's decisions in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.:AIR 1992 SC 604; Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.:(2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.:(2014) 6 SCC 46; State of Maharashtra vs. Vikram Anantrai Doshi:(2014) 15 SCC 29; Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Maninder Singh:(2016) 1 SCC 389; and State of Tamil Nadu vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley & Ors.:(2016) 1 SCC 376, upon hearing in Abhishek Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2021), Justice Ahustosh Kumar quashed the order of dated August 12, 2015 by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Danapur in a Complaint Case of 2014, whereby cognizance has been taken against him under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). All further proceedings pursuant to the order of cognizance were stand quashed. It all began with a dispute between them regarding measurement of land to demarcate their respective boundaries and which was pending adjudication before the L.R.D.C., Danapur in a Land Settlement Case No. 111 of 2012-13.

Abhishek Kumar, the petitioner is the son of Sri Braj Kishore Prasad and the second respondent is Monu, son of Dharnidhar Mishra are neighbors in Patna. The petitioner was the son of an Advocate of the Patna High Court. The father of the complainant/opposite party No. 2, the second respondent also was a practicing Advocate of the High Court. 

The Court recorded that "there are too many differences and contradictory complaint petitions, one filed by the opposite party No. 2 and the other by his father, both of which relate to the same occurrence which took place on October 10, 2014. The father of the petitioner and the father of the opposite party No. 2 are the practicing Advocates of the High Court and are also neighbours in real life. For some reason or the other, some dispute had arisen between them with respect to demarcation of their boundaries, which led to a series of litigation between them. It is the presumption of the opposite party No. 2 as also his father that the police case against the opposite party No. 2 and his brother has been filed at the instance of the petitioner and his father and that the police party had assaulted opposite party No. 2 and his brother as also his father only because the petitioner and his father had brought them into their collusion. The purpose for filing such cases was only to settle scores between the two families, which were on very good terms in the past. An effort was made by the High Court to have the dispute between the parties settled. 

Justice Kumar observed:"it appears that the accusation has been levelled only to wreak vengeance because of the dispute which had arisen between the two neighbours. Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.) a provision has been made in the nature of savings of the inherent powers of the Court as a superior Court to make such orders which are necessary for preventing the abuse of the process of Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice....Broadly speaking, if the High Court is the of the view that continuance of any litigation would only be an abuse of the process of the Court, it would be justified in preventing such abuse and exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such proceedings."

He added: The invocation of this jurisdiction of the Courts to quash the proceedings at the initial stages on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties may be permissible under certain circumstances but it cannot be treated to be the same as the invocation of the jurisdiction for the purposes of compounding an offence which is governed by the provisions contained in Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. This has been clarified by the Supreme Court in order to lay at rest the controversy whether provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked even if the offences are non-compoundable. While exercising such powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even though the matter has not fully been settled between the parties or relates to offences which are not compoundable, the Courts are required to give due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. In cases of heinous and serious offences involving offences ought not be exercised normally.

The 10 page-long judgement concluded:"It is expected that the parties shall jettison their differences and would file necessary applications before the Court below seeking to withdraw such prosecution for their common good. On the filing of such applications by the parties before the Court below, the Court below shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law, which shall be in consonance with the spirit in which the present order of quashing of the prosecution has been passed."