[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Mahesh Thakur @ Mahesh Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70647 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-374 Year-2022 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Mahesh Thakur @ Mahesh Kumar Thakur S/o- Late Ramashish Thakur
Resident of village-Lakshrampur Police Station- Kalyanpur District-Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dayanand Thakur S/o- Late Bhagirath Thakur Village- Lakshrampur Ps-
Kalyanpur Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanobar Shahnaz, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. (Dr.) Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-12-2025
Heard Mr. Sanobar Shahnaz, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. (Dr.) Indiwar
Kumari, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred the application
under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking
cognizance dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 374
of 2022 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance
of offence against the petitioner under Sections 341, 323, 307,
379, 504, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, informs that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
2/7
the petitioner and informant are co-villagers and due to land
dispute an altercation took place between the parties, for which
the present FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel further
informs that the parties have already filed the compromise
petition on 17.06.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur. On these grounds learned counsel submitted that the
order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside and quashed.
4. Learned APP for the State has opposed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I find that the offences as alleged in the
FIR registered under Section 307 and 379 of Indian Penal Code
is cognizable in nature and the parties are ready to settle the
dispute outside the court. The parties are co-villagers and the
present dispute arises due to previous enmity relating to a piece
of land, which led to lodging of the present FIR under Section
307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned District
Court has taken cognizance in the aforesaid sections.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors.
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78,
in para nos. 8 to 20 has observed that after amicable settlement
between the parties, proceeding with the criminal prosecution
will serve no purpose and would amount to abuse of process of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
3/7
law, which are reproduced hereinafter:
" 8. Coming to the facts, notwithstanding the fact that the High
Court has mixed up the concepts of compounding and powers of
quashment, still the case needs to be considered from the point of
view of Section 482.
9. Will the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the criminal
proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when
parties come forward with a settlement? In that event, what
should be the duty of the court and what are the tests to be
applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted
and in which cases it would not be?
10. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others,
(2019) 5 SCC 688, after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh
and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2014) 6 SCC 466
and other judgments, this Court held:-
"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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
4/7
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 is there for the
sake of it or 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)
11. Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be
worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in
Narinder Singh (supra):-
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add
that though it is a serious offence as the
accused person(s) attempted to take the life
of another person/victim, at the same time
the court cannot be oblivious to hard
realities that many times whenever there is a
quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
5/7
by either or both the parties, there is a
tendency to give it a slant of an offence
under Section 307 IPC as well..."
12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court has
held that mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge-sheet should 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 chargesheet/framing of charges
or during the trial. [See 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].
13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there is a
settlement between the parties. The case filed by the
appellants' party which was prior in point of time and that
too on the same day of occurrence, has been settled.
14. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after
investigation, the police actually closed the case in its final
report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court, which by its
order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept the same and
summoned the appellants. The incident is of 11.08.1991, i.e.
about 33½ years back. No doubt, there is a reference to the
firing in the FIR but admittedly there was no injury. The
allegation is that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is
since deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not
make out a case of common object for the appellants under
Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of Section 307 is
concerned.
15. The role attributed to the seven members, including the
five appellants is not specific. General allegation was that
they abused in filthy language and assaulted Mahmood with
lathi and iron bars. The specific individual role was only
attributed to Adbul Waris, who is since deceased.
16. In any event, the police who investigated disbelieved the
entire story. No recoveries have been made of any pellets.
What engaged the attention of the High Court was only the
fracture of the head of the distal phalanx of left finger of
respondent No.2.
17. We have seen the injuries sustained by Mahmood (R-2)
from the medical evidence collected. From the injury report,
it is clear that while the first four injuries were contusions
and abrasions, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 pertained to incised
lacerated wound and swelling on the middle finger of the
left hand. We have also seen the x-ray report which shows
that in the left hand there was a fracture of the head of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
6/7
distal phalanx of left ring finger. Assuming that this was the
result of injury with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in
Laxmi Narayan (supra), considering the injury and the
nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence under
Section 307 IPC is made out.
18. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:-
"307. Attempt to murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person
offending under this section is under sentence of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death."
19. 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 the Section 307 of IPC, either on a stand-alone
basis or as held above with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.
20. 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 of 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. We are also firmly of the
opinion that proceeding with the trial, when parties have
amicably resolved the dispute in the present case, would be
futile and the ends of justice require that the settlement be
given effect to by quashing the proceedings. It would be a
grave abuse of process to let this trial remain pending
under the above circumstances, particularly when the
dispute is settled and resolved."(emphasis supplied)
7. Keeping in mind the circumstances, nature of injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70647 of 2025 dt.02-12-2025
7/7
and dispute between the parties, as well as, taking note of the
joint compromise petition dated 17.06.2025 filed before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur and the said fact has also
been taken note by him vide order dated 20.06.2025 and
considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Naushey Ali (supra), the order taking cognizance dated
29.02.2024
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 374 of 2022 is hereby
quashed and set-aside.
8. Accordingly, the present quashing application
stands disposed of.
9. Office is directed to keep the Certified copy of
the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Samastipur on record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.12.2025
Transmission Date 10.12.2025
