(2025:JHHC:33742) 1 Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 ------ Raju Kumar @ Raju Ranjan prasad, aged about 65 years, son of Shambhu Sharan Prasad, resident of village Banpur, PO & PS – Latehar, District – Latehar. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Hamid Hajam, aged about 60 years, s/o late Jasmuddin Hajam, resident of village Sasang, PO & PS – Latehar, District – Latehar. … Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P. For the Opp. No. 2 : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T 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 BNSS with the prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78, paragraph no. 23 of which reads as under:- 23. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706], this Court has held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should (2025:JHHC:33742) 2 Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital / delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise would be permissible after investigation and filing of charge – sheet / framing of charges or during the trial. (See para 15.4) of Laxmi Narayan). 4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 2 by drawing attention of this Court to I.A. No. 14620 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the informant – Opp. Party No. 2 that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute as the occurrence took place due to some misunderstanding between the parties. The informant and the petitioner are the co-villagers and the informant is not desirous in pursuing this case, in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. It is then also jointly submitted that no offence against the petitioner is made out. Admittedly, the deceased is the mechanic of air conditioner and he accidentally came in contact with the electric energy supply line while repairing the air conditioner of the petitioner on the roof of his house. 6. It is next submitted that the offence punishable under Section 105 of the B.N.S., 2023, is not made out even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner is considered to be true in their entirety; more so because of the compromise, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to an abuse to the process of law. 7. 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 (2025:JHHC:33742) 3 Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 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 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 (2025:JHHC:33742) 4 Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 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 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 power for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. (2025:JHHC:33742) 5 Cr. M. P. No. 3186 of 2025 8. 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. 9. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings of Latehar P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025, which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with Latehar P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025 which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No. 14620 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th of November, 2025 AFR/ Aditi