2025:JHHC:38729 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 405 of 2025 D.K. Sinha @ Durgesh Kumar Sinha @ D.K. Singh, aged about 59 years, S/o Deonity Prasad Sinha, Mines Manager, resident of Pundi Project, P.O-Hesagarha, P.S-Mandu, District-Ramgarh at present R/o Akash Deep, G.M, Office, Magadh, P.O-Dakra, P.S- Khalari, District-Ranchi …… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Sanjay Kumar, son of Sukhlal Singh, R/o Village Mirchak, P.O. Guruwa, P.S-Guruwa, District-Gaya (Bihar), At present resident of Quarter No.B 06/47, New Colony, East Kuju, P.O- Kuju, P.S-Mandu, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate ----------- CAV Judgement Pronounced on 13.11.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in M.C.A No.67 of 2025, arising out of SC/ST Case No. 02 of 2018 in connection with Ramgarh SC/ST P.S. Case No.1of 2018 (corresponding to G.R No.408 of 2018) by which the discharge petition filed on behalf of the appellant has been rejected. 2. I.A. No.5746 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the appellant and Respondent No.2 by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 3. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned APP for the State and Mr. Kumar Harsh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2025:JHHC:38729 2 4. The Informant-Respondent No.2 had lodged the FIR on 08.04.2018 stating therein that on 03.01.2018, while he was on duty since morning at 06.00 am on his post of Overman at Pundi Project (CIL), there is a breakfast break from 10.00 am to 11.00 am. After taking breakfast when he arrived at his Phase (i.e. his work place) at around 11.10 am, then the Mining Manager, Sri D.K. Sinha, (i.e. the appellant) questioned and scolded him for arriving late after ten (10) minutes, and the appellant had also threatened to suspend him. Thereafter, the Informant had protested by stating him that he is not a category-1 labour and he should not be misbehaved with like that. Then, the Manager abused him in the name of his caste for giving reply and asked him to leave. Thereafter, he went to Mandu Police Station several times to lodge the FIR but his application was not accepted and after which he sent his application by registered post for not instituting the FIR. Thereafter, on the basis of the written application sent by the Informant, the Police had instituted the case i.e. the Ramgarh ST-SC Case No.01/2018 for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh, is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been wrongly implicated by the Informant due to impulsion. 6. It is submitted that the occurrence took place on 03.01.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 08.04.2018 i.e. after delay of three (03) months. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case before the learned Trial Court below, the case has been 2025:JHHC:38729 3 compromised between the appellant and the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 has no grievance against the appellant and they have filed the Joint Compromise Petition before the learned Court below. It is submitted that after filing of Joint compromise Petition, the appellant had filed discharge petition for the same, however the same was rejected. 7. In support of the same, learned counsel for the appellant has relied in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 and also in the case of Anup Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All 1477. It is submitted that the appellant and the Informant are present in the Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court and submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer of the appellant. It is submitted that the case is non- compoundable in nature and hence the prayer of discharge him rightly been rejected by the learned Court below. 9. However, learned counsel for the Informant has admitted the factum of compromise and submitted that the Informant has no grievances against the appellant. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties is private and both are working at the same place and hence the Informant does not want to proceed the case and hence he has no objection if the Joint Compromise Petition is allowed and the Informant does not want to contest this case. It is submitted that the Informant is present in the Court and has supported the factum of compromise. 10. Perused the records of this case and the Joint Compromise Petition dated 29.04.2025 and order dated 2025:JHHC:38729 4 08.07.2025 passed by this Court and considered the submissions of both the sides. 11. Para Nos.5,6,8,9,10,12 to 17 of Joint Compromise Petition dated 29.04.2025 vide I.A. No.5746 of 2025 read as follows:- “Para-5:- That it is stated that after registration of the case, good senses have been prevailed between the parties and therefore, the case has been compromised between the parties with the help of common friends and well wishers and now they do now want to proceed further with the case.” “Para-6:- That the present case is arising out of a dispute between an officer of the management and workman of CCL and therefore, they sit together for negotiation of the matter and the same was materialized between the parties and therefore, the informant has agreed to withdraw the present case from the court below.” “Para-8:- That the informant, thus has agreed to withdraw the FIR against the appellant and the parties shall make statements to the effect of their compromise before the Hon’ble Court as and when required.” “Para-9:- That all the dispute between the parties stand final resolved and there is no ill-will and complaints against each other in any manner. The parties have thus, decided to file this compromise petitioner showing their amicable settlement.” “Para-10:- That it is humbly stated and submitted that the dispute between both the parties are private in nature and therefore it is prayed for this Hon’ble Court may kindly accept this compromise petition as continuation of the trial would an abuse of process of law, and accordingly it is prayed that the entire criminal proceedings against the present appellant may be set aside and the petitioner shall be discharged of all the criminal liabilities attached with the criminal proceeding. “Para-12:-That it is hereby stated and submitted jointly by the parties that they will not disturb each other in future and their families at any point of time.” “Para-13:- That it is stated and submitted that if any party to this Joint Compromise Petition will breach any condition mentioned aforesaid then the opposite party shall have all the right to legal action against the party who have violated the terms and condition of this joint compromise petition.” “Para-14:-That this joint compromise petition has been executed between the parties with their mutual consent and free will, without any pressure, force, coercion or undue influence from any side. The parties have decided to end all their dispute fully and finally.” 2025:JHHC:38729 5 “Para-15:- That the compromise has been arrived between the parties with free will and under no duress, coercion or any force.” “Para-16:- That any complaint by the parties against each other shall stand withdrawn, cancelled and revoked finally after filing of this compromise petition.” “Para-17:- That under the aforesaid fact and circumstances the appellant and the Informant/Respondent No.2 had preferred a Joint Compromise Petition before the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Ramgarh in Ramgarh (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.01/2018, G.R. No.408/2018.” 12. The above Joint Compromise Petition dated 29.04.2025 has been duly signed by the appellant namely D.K. Sinha and the Respondent No.2 namely Sanjay Kumar on each and every pages of the Joint Compromise Petition and they have also furnished their respective Aadhaar Card and also signed by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. Even the appellant and the Informant are present in the Court and they have accepted the factum of compromise. 13. It has been held in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 at para 11 to 17, 19 and 21 as follows:- “Para-11:- The Court in Ramgopal [Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834] further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held : (SCC para 19) “19. … Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: 2025:JHHC:38729 6 19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of society; 19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any; 19.3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; and 19.4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” (emphasis supplied) Para-12:- In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal [Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834] and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant-victim and the accused. Para-13:- We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482CrPC, are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). Para-14:- With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far-reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court's power to do “complete justice”. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. Para-15:- The Constitution Bench decision in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India [Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union 2025:JHHC:38729 7 of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409, para 48] 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 [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] ) 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) Para-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 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. Para-17:- On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the 2025:JHHC:38729 8 underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC. Para-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. Para-21:- Consequently, and for the aforementioned reasons, we find it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and quash the criminal proceedings to do complete justice between the parties. As a sequel thereto, judgment and orders passed by the trial court and the High Court [Kodulal v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 1995, order dated 2-8-2010 (MP)] are set aside. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The appeal is allowed in above terms. 14. It has been held in the case of Anup Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All 1477 in para 6 to 8 as follow:- “Para-6:- After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I find that after compromise/settlement arrived at between the parties in the present case, the chance of ultimate conviction is bleak and therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution against the applicant to continue, as the same would be futile exercise and a sheer wastage of precious time of the Court. The continuation of criminal proceedings after compromise would cause oppression and prejudice to the parties concerned. If the parties concerned want to bury the hatchet and are willing to move on in personal dispute on the basis of compromise, they may be allowed to compound the offences in terms of settlement, because in such circumstances the proceedings can hardly be taken to their logical culmination and, the prospect of conviction gets lost. Para-7:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of dictum and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC 635 : AIR 2021 SC 5228, this Court feels that this is a fit case, where this Court can exercise its inherent power to secure the end of justice. In the case in hand interest of justice would be 2025:JHHC:38729 9 met, if the prayer of parties is acceded to and the criminal proceedings and other litigation between the parties is brought to an end. Para-8:- In view of the above, criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicant are hereby quashed.” 15. It has been held in the case of Mazhar Alam @ Majhar Alam and Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in WP(Cr) No.737 of 2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar) of this Court at para 9 to 12 which read as follow:- “Para-9:- Now, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are journalists and they were only making reporting and the informant/victim got annoyed and that was the reason for lodging the F.I.R.. Subsequently, both the parties have realized and the matter has been settled. Since the alleged crime is not a heinous crime, rather most of the Sections are compoundable except Section 353 of the IPC and Section 31(i)(r) of the S.C./S.T. Act. Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out on the facts and circumstances of the case because the ingredient of the same has not been fulfilled. So far as the S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, the informant is a Government 4 official and she is in a position of power and these petitioners are not an authority, rather they are journalists who were only doing their job. Para-10:- It has been further submitted that save and except verbal exchange there is no other allegation against these petitioners. Para-11:- Learned counsel for the informant has supported the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Para-12:- In view of the above discussion and declaration of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also considering the fact that the matter has already been settled between the parties, this criminal writ petition is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in connection with Ramgarh S.C./S.T. Case No. 16 of 2021 is hereby, quashed.” 16. It appears that the case has been compromised between the parties. 17. It also appears that the Appellant and the Respondent No.2 do not want to proceed the case further and they had settled the dispute with each other and there is cordial relationship between them now. 2025:JHHC:38729 10 18. It further appears that the occurrence had taken place in the office of the appellant, which is not in public view. Thus the offence under offence 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, is also not made out. 19. In view of the above the judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi mentioned above and also on the facts and in the circumstances of this case and also considering the Joint Compromise petition filed by the parties, the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in M.C.A No.67 of 2025, arising out of SC/ST Case No. 02 of 2018 appertaining to Ramgarh SC/ST P.S. Case No.1 of 2018 (corresponding to G.R No.408 of 2018) is set aside and the appellant is discharged in connection with SC/ST Case No. 02 of 2018 appertaining to Ramgarh SC/ST P.S. Case No.1 of 2018 and the appellant is set at free. 20. Thus, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.405 of 2025 is allowed. 21. Accordingly, the I.A. No.5746 of 2025 is also allowed and stands disposed of. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 13.11.2025 Nishant/-