The High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 599 of 2025 1.Ajit Sahu @ Ajit Kumar 2.Shashi Kashyap ---------- 1.State of Jharkhand 2.Dhananjay Lakra Versus ---------- ..… Appellants ….. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Appellants : Mr. Shrijit Choudhary, Advocate For the State For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P. : None ---------- ORAL ORDER IN COURT 08/30.10.2025 This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 14 (A) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 for setting aside the entire F.I.R., in connection with Argora P.S.Case No. 361 of 2022, registered under Section-341, 323, 504, 506/34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (g)(r) (s) of SC/ST Act, which is pending in the Court of A.J.C.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi and also prays for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2023 and other criminal proceedings passed by the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the Appellant No.1 had taken his land of Khata No.205, Mouza-Argora, from his father on rent for five years and an agreement was prepared on 16.01.2004, under the pressure of his neighbours. However, after death of his father, Ajit Sahu (i.e. Appellant No.1) stopped paying rent and was trying to grab the land. Informant had asked him to vacate the land but he didn’t do it. Then 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) informant sent a legal notice on 31.08.2022. The informant met the Appellant No.1 several times and requested to vacate the land but he and his wife, i.e. Appellant No.2 abused him (informant), using his caste name, in presence of others. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Shrijit Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 4. It appears from the counter affidavit filed by the State on 04.09.2025 that the Notice has been served upon the Informant, i.e. Respondent No.2 on 01.09.2025. However, the informant had not appeared before this Court on 08.09.2025 and even today, i.e. on 30.10.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the F.I.R. and the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi are illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellants have lodged F.I.R. dated 16.09.2022 because of the disturbance and nuisance created by the informant and because of the F.I.R. being lodged by the appellants the informant has lodged the present FIR dated 13.10.2022. It is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings against the Appellants are illegal and instituted with a view to wreak vengeance against them because of the dispute between the parties. It is submitted that the dispute between the parties, if any, is purely civil in nature and has been converted into the criminal proceeding. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) It is submitted that a joint Compromise petition between the parties dated 17.08.2023 (i.e. Annexure-4) were filed before the learned Court below, which is duly signed by both the parties, i.e. Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Sahu, Shashi Kashyap (Appellant) and Dhananjay Lakra (Informant) in which both the parties agreed to drop all the cases which are filed by the respective parties before the learned Court below. It is submitted that the land of informant along with building is vacated by the appellants as far back on 5th August, 2023 and at present there is no dispute by and between the parties. It is submitted that both the parties signed the compromise petition on 17.08.2023 and two witnesses had also signed the compromise deed on 17.08.2023. It is submitted that the relation between the appellants and the Informant are of the landlord and the tenant since 2004 and the father of the Informant had entered into an agreement with the appellant on 16.01.2004 by executing an Kirayanama, i.e. an agreement. However, learned Court below had committed grave error, by passing the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 by directing the O/C to issue Non- Bailable Warrant against both the appellants with a direction to the I.O. to execute the same within 26.07.2023, which is illegal and arbitrary, hence this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) 6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the police has submitted chargesheet against the appellant. It is submitted that the Informant and his witnesses have fully supported the case. It is submitted that the Informant was abused by the appellants in public view and thus, the provisions of Section 3(1) (g)(r) (s) of SC/ST Act is fully attracted. It is submitted that compromise is not possible in the case as the learned Court below has taken cognizance under the provisions of SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Spl. Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi is fit and proper as the appellants have not appeared before the learned Court below and no interference is required and this criminal appeal is devoid of merit, hence the same may be dismissed. 7. Perused the records of this Case and considered the submissions of both sides. 8. It transpires that no particular date and time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R., however, the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.10.2022 by the Informant against the appellants. 9. It transpires from the Kirayanama dated 16.01.2004 (i.e. Annexure-2), which is an agreement between the Appellants No.1, namely Ajit Sahu @ Ajit Kumar and one Chunda Oraon (i.e. the father of the informant), that the Appellant No.1 was the tenant of the father of the Informant and there is a relationship of 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) landlord and tenant between the parties and the Appellant No.2 is the wife of the Appellant No.1. 10. It appears from the Joint Compromise petition dated 17.08.2023 (i.e. Annexure-4) between the informant, i.e. Dhananjay Lakra and the appellants, namely Ajit Sahu @ Ajit Kumar and Shashi Kashyap, filed before the learned Trial Court that certain compromise has been reached at between the parties on mutual consent on 17.08.2023 on certain terms and conditions. However, the above compromise petition has been prepared on 17.08.2023, i.e. after passing of the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Court below. 11. It further transpires from the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 that learned A.J.C.-II-cum- special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ranchi has mechanically passed order dated 26.06.2023, by which the prayer of the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant for securing appearance of the appellants had been allowed and the Office has been directed to issue N.B.W. against all the accused persons, i.e. the appellants. 12. It transpires that thereafter the appellants had earlier filed Cr.M.P. No. 222 of 2024. However, the said Cr.M.P. was withdrawn by the appellants on 04.03.2024 before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court with certain liberty. 13. Thereafter, the appellants had again filed Cr.M.P. Filing No. 16449 of 2024, which was also 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) withdrawn on 22.10.2024 by the appellants before the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court with a liberty to file an appeal under Section 14 (A) of S.C. & S.T. (P.O.A) Act. Hence, this instant criminal appeal has been filed. 14. It appears from the F.I.R. that the Appellant No. 1 was tenant of the father of the Informant and father of the Informant had died in the year 2008. Thereafter, the Informant had asked the appellants to vacate the land in question, over which the establishment of the appellants was existing. Later on, the F.I.R. was lodged by the Informant on 13.10.2022. 15. It further appears that the Appellant No.1 had also filed Written Application against the Informant on 16.09.2022 before the Officer-in-Charge, Argora P.S. for instituting the case stating therein that the Informant had started construction and is obstructing the Appellant No.1 passage for the last one week and his establishment will be closed. Thereafter, the Informant appears to have lodged the F.I.R. against the appellants on 13.10.2022. 16. It appears that some subsequent events have taken place between the parties and the land of the Informant is said to have been vacated by the appellants on 05.08.2023 itself as has been stated in Ground No. VI of the instant Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 599 of 2025. 17. It further transpires that after passing of the impugned order dated 26.06.2023 by the learned Trial Court, the Appellant No.1 and Informant appear to 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) have settled their dispute and they have filed the joint compromise petition on 17.08.2023. However, the Informant did not appear before this Court inspite of service of Notice upon him. 18. 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 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. 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) 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.” 19. It appears that the case has been compromised between the parties. 20. It also appears that the Appellants and the Respondent No.2 do not want to proceed with the case further and they had settled the dispute with each other and there is cordial relationship between them now. 21. It appears that the dispute between the appellants and the Informant are of civil in nature and the Appellant No.1 is the tenant of the Informant, i.e. Respondent No.2 and the matter appears to have settled between the parties and as per the assertions of the appellants, they have already vacated the land of the Informant on 05.08.2023. 22. It is well settled from a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court that N.B.W. should not be issued mechanically. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2012) 9 SCC 791 that Warrant of Arrest cannot be issued mechanically. 23. It has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen) of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2722 of 2019 (Md. Rustum Alam@ Rustam & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand) vide order dated 27.04.2020 that before issuing N.B.W. and process under Sections 82 and 83 of C.P.C. subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate is required and it cannot be issued in mechanical manner. 24. It has also been held by another Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary) of this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 974 of 2023 vide order dated 19.02.2024 that warrant of arrest cannot be issued mechanically but the same can only be issued after recording satisfaction that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is warranted as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. It is well settled that issuance of N.B.W. without executing Bailable Warrant of Arrest is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. 26. 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 that offence can be compounded in case of compromise. 27. In view of the discussions made above and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:32822 ) impugned order dated 26.06.2023, passed in Argora P.S. Case No.361 of 2022, by the learned A.J.C.-II- cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Court below for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and the learned Court below shall also liberally consider the compromise petition filed, if any, by the appellants and the Informant. 28. The appellants may appear before the learned Trial Court below along with joint compromise petition in presence of the Informant and the Court below is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the joint compromise petition before it and the law laid down by the Jharkhand High Court, the Allahabad High Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court in accordance with law within a period of Six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 29. Thus, Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 599 of 2025 is allowed to the extent as indicated above with the aforesaid direction. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) s.m. Dated 30.10.2025 10