[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Indranil Chatterjee vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. (2026:JHHC:9669)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 502 of 2024
Indranil Chatterjee, aged about 50 years, son of late Ranjit Kumar
Chatterjee, resident of Mohalla- Kalpara, P.O.- Pakur, P.S.- Pakur (T),
District- Pakur (Jharkhand) ---- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Anindita Trivedi @ Anindita Jaiswal, daughter of Sri Prabhat Kumar
Trivedi and wife of Sunil Jaiswal, resident of village- Harindanga
Bazar, P.O.- Pakur, P.S.- Pakur (T), District- Pakur (Jharkhand)
3. Ram Thakur, aged about 38 yrs, S/o Sushil Thakur, R/o Tola, Aliganj,
Sudama Colony, P.O +P.S.- Pakur, Dist. - Pakur
4. Sovik Thakur, aged about 21 yrs, S/o Rajendra Thakur, Bodi Aliganj,
Kushi Nursing home, P.O +P.S.- Pakur, Dist. - Pakur
5. Vishnu Karmakar, aged about 26 yrs, S/o Nabu Kukmar Karmakar, R/o
Rajapada, behind Rani School, P.O +P.S.- Pakur, Dist. - Pakur
--- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satish Prasad, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
For the O.P. No.3 to 5 : Mr. B. M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
10/06.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. R.S.
Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and Mr.
B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior counsel for the Opposite party No.3 to 5.
2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 02.04.2024
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pakur in Misc.
Criminal Application No.47 of 2024, whereby and whereunder, the prayer
for discharge has been rejected.
3. Submission has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the victims have compromised the matter at the very initial
stage of the incident and considering the said fact, the petitioner was
granted bail. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has a
licensed revolver and in fact, the victims had trespassed into the land of
the petitioner, which resulted in the incident. It has further been submitted
that these facts were considered in the order dated 11.09.2024 and the
direction for framing of charge was ordered to be stayed.
4. In support of his contention, Mr. Kashyap has relied upon the case
of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78.
5. Mr. B. M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the opposite party
nos.3, 4 and 5, who are the victims of the case has submitted that the
compromise, which was earlier entered into, have subsequently failed. It
has been submitted that petitioner is alleged to have fired three shots at
the victims who sustained gunshot injuries.
6. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the opposite party
no.2, who is the informant has stated about the act of the petitioner of
committing firearm injuries upon three of the victims. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner was granted bail based on a compromise
which subsequently did not see the light of the day and therefore the plea
for discharge of the petitioner on the ground of compromise, is not
sustainable.
7. Replying to such submission, Mr. Kashyap, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that without any reasons, the opposite
parties have resiled from the earlier compromise which was entered into
and they should be proceeded for contempt of court.
8. It appears from the allegations levelled that the petitioner along
with his associates had entered into a land situated at Dag No.1839 of
Pakur Mauza No.128 upon which the matter was informed to the police.
The police had arrived and the work was stopped. Subsequently, on
08.11.2023, the petitioner and other accused persons variously armed had
tried to surround the said land by affixing a concrete pillar and on getting
such information, the informant, his family members and others had come
to the place of occurrence to stall the illegal activities of the petitioner and
other accused persons. The petitioner had started firing as a result of
which three bullets had hit the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5.
9. On completion of investigation having found the allegations to be
true, chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. The gist of the
allegation, therefore, reveals that the petitioner had fired five shots out of
which three shots hit the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5, which resulted in their
suffering firearm injuries.
10. Though, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the compromise was effected at the time of bail and the
concerned respondents have never filed any document to indicate that
they have resiled from the earlier compromise, but regard being had to the
nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner in which three persons
sustained firearms injuries and the discharge application having been
appropriately considered by the learned Trial Court, such submission of
the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is negated.
11. As has been noted above, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
in his support of various contentions has referred to the case of Naushey
Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (supra), wherein
it has been held as follows:-
"30. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances, the
nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury, on facts, we are
inclined to conclude that the overt act attributed to the appellants
does not bring the case within the four corners of Section 307 IPC,
either on a stand-alone basis or as held above with the aid of Section
149 IPC.
31. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the
overall circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of
the injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger),
the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases
where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At the
highest, the offence alleged could be one under Section 326 IPC. It
could not be said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that
this is a crime which has such an harmful effect on the public and
that it has the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of the
society. We make it clear that we are saying so on the facts of the
present case."
12. The factual aspect of the case under reference is quite distinct and
different than what has been alleged in the present case. The act of the
petitioner and the injuries sustained by the respondent nos.3, 4 and 5
which all were firearm injury comes within a serious offence and since
sufficient material has been collected in course of investigation, satisfying
the allegations made in the First Information Report, the question of
discharging the accused/petitioner on the basis of compromise would not
stand.
13. In this context, the reference is made to the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688,
where it has been held as follows:-
"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions
of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and
held as under:
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code
to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties
have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved 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;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes 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;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings
for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc.
which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that
the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.
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 it there for
the sake of it of the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to framing 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.
However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the
charge- sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such
exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under
investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and
29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh' should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances
stated hereinabove,
15.5". While exercising the power under Section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have
a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High
Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the
conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with
the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am not inclined to
entertain this Criminal Revision Application, which consequently stands
dismissed.
15. Pending I.A., if any, also dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Dated:06.04.2026
Jay/-
