Jharkhand High Court
Jaan Mohammad Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1941 of 2025
------
Jaan Mohammad Ansari, aged about 67 years, son of Late Ali Baksh
Miyan, R/o Village Sarifatand, P.O. -Manikbad, P.S. -Derori,
District -Giridih (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Khusboo Khantoon, aged about 26 years, D/o Md. Salim, R/o
Bendua, P.O. -Chunglo, P.S. Jamua, District -Giridih (Jharkhand).
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Bhaskar Kumar, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Deori P.S.
Case No. 108 of 2021 and the consequential proceedings including the
order dated 25.06.2025 whereby and where under the learned Judicial
Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has issued the proclamation under Section
82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in connection with the said Deori
P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021; which case has been registered for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427, 498A,
504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the
1 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
Dowry Prohibition Act, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st
Class, Giridih.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 jointly draws the attention of this Court
towards Interlocutory Application No.9872 of 2025 which is supported
by the separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant -opposite
party no.2 and submits that therein, it has categorically been mentioned
that a compromise has been effected to between the parties and the
parties have amicably settled their dispute. The opposite party no.2-
informant is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is further jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no offence punishable under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is as such made out and to make
the offence serious, some exaggerations has been made. It is next
submitted that the investigation of the case is going on but charge sheet
has not yet been submitted against the petitioner. It is further jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the compromise
between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the
case. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the dispute
between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is
involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits
that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of
this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in
view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is
2 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for
by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
4. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view
of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for
allowing the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal
miscellaneous petition.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after
carefully 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 paragraph-29 of which reads as under:
“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:
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.
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:
(i) ends of justice, or
(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.
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
3 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
4 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
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 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)
had the occasion to consider the scope and ambit of section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis exercise of the said power
for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences
punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this
case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental
depravity involved in this case, rather the same relates to private
dispute between the parties arising out of matrimonial dispute, in
which no public policy is involved.
7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case
where the F.I.R. of Deori P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 and the
consequential proceedings which case has been registered for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427, 498A,
504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act including the order dated 25.06.2025, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih whereby and where
under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has issued the
proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in
5 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025
( 2025:JHHC:22298 )
connection with the said Deori P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021, be quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the F.I.R. of Deori P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021 and the
consequential proceedings which case has been registered for the
offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427, 498A,
504, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act including the order dated 25.06.2025, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih whereby and where
under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has issued the
proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in
connection with the said Deori P.S. Case No. 108 of 2021, is quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed.
10. In view of disposal of the instant criminal miscellaneous
petition, Interlocutory Application No. 9872 of 2025 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 5th of August, 2025
AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
6 Cr. M.P. No.1941 of 2025