Sahil Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II : Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC II For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate

¶17

By the Court:-

¶18

Heard the parties.

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this

¶20

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer

¶21

to quash the First Information Report in connection with Pithoria

¶22

P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable

¶23

W.P. (Cr.) No.185 of 2025

¶24

1

¶25

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 by drawing attention of the court to Interlocutory Application No.2466 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioners and the informant-respondent no.2 that therein it has been mentioned that the genesis of the occurrence was a land dispute between the parties which has already been settled and the parties have agreed to enjoy the peaceful possession of their respective lands. Perusal of the record reveals that because of land dispute, a scuffle took place between the parties and allegation of attempt to murder was made in the FIR against the petitioners, committed by the petitioners by pressing the chest of the informant. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that there is no public policy involved in this case and in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the case. Hence, it is submitted that First Information Report in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the First Information Report in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶28

W.P. (Cr.) No.185 of 2025

¶29

2

¶30

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 , in paragraph 29, has laid down the principles by which, the high court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties, and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings which, reads as under:

¶31

“ 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its 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:

¶32

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

¶33

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

¶34

(i) ends of justice, or

¶35

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

¶36

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

¶37

W.P. (Cr.) No.185 of 2025

¶38

3

¶39

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶40

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

¶41

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 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 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.

¶42

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court

¶43

W.P. (Cr.) No.185 of 2025

¶44

4

¶45

would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied)

¶46

Now coming to the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that because of some misunderstanding, this case has been instituted. It is needless to mention here that in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the case would put the accused-petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused by not quashing this criminal case. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of law and in the interest of the justice, the First Information Report in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.33 of 2024 be quashed qua the petitioners only.

¶47

Accordingly, the First Information Report in connection with Pithoria P.S. Case No.33 of 2024, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

¶48

In the result, this writ petition is allowed.

¶49

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶50

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11^th March, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶51

W.P. (Cr.) No.185 of 2025

¶52

5

Sahil Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Nayan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pappu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Abdul Rashid Alias Abdul Rashid Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manoj Kumar Saw Alias Manoj Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand