Balal Ansari @ Belal Ansari @ Belal vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 4517 Jhar

     IN        THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 1867 of 2021
                                      with
                              I.A. No. 6666 of 2021

      1. Balal Ansari @ Belal Ansari @ Belal
      2. Mehtab Ansari
      3. Irfan Ansari
      4. Rizwan Ansari
      5. Md. Sahjahan Ansari @ Md. Shahajahan
      6. Harun Rasadid @ Harun Ansari
      7. Tabraj Ansari @ Tabrej Ansari                .....   ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand.
      2. Ehsan Ansari                                  ..... ...      Opposite Parties
                                --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

------

05/ 01.12.2021 Heard Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

4. The FIR was lodged stating therein that informant has alleged that on 25.08.2020 he was digging foundation for constructing wall on his land in the meantime accused persons Mahtab Ansari, Irfan Ansari, Rizwan Ansari, Sahjahan Ansari, Harun Ansari, Tabruj Ansari and Belal Ansari all came and tried to stop the work and on raising objection by the informant one Attaulla Ansari was hit with iron rod by Sahjahan Ansari due to which he suffered fracture injury on his right hand and the informant went to save him he was also assaulted with lathi and danda causing bleeding from his nose. It is also alleged that the accused persons threatened to kill also and at the time of leaving they took away spade and Tulu Pump belonging to informant.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as the O.P. No. 2 are brothers amongst themselves and the case is arising out of digging the foundation for constructing the wall on his land and no societal interest is involved in this case. Learned counsel, however, submits that Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable. He submits that the petitioners have filed the petition before the concerned Court for compromise, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this petition.

6. Mr. Bijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that I.A. No. 6666 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioners as well as O.P. No. 2 praying therein that the case may be quashed, in view of the fact that the compromise has entered into between the parties. He submits that affidavit of the petitioners as well as the O.P. No. 2 are there in the said interlocutory application.

7. Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer submitting that Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.

8. Reference may be made in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in those cases which are not compoundable and there is no chance of conviction and also there is no societal interest, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, the power is to be exercised. In Paragraphs-29 and 30, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O. under Section 173, Cr.P.C. is also placed before the Court it would become the bounding duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to

interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.

30. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatche.

9. In the case of " Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also conceded about the quashing of the case in terms of the settlement, arrived at between the parties. Paragraph-61 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while

working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering that the compromise has entered into between the parties and no societal interest is involved in this case and also taking into consideration the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Narinder Singh & Ors. (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra), the First Information Report and the entire criminal proceeding, arising out of Dumri P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, are hereby, quashed.

11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. I.A. No. 6666 of 2021 also stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-