The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the parties and the nature of the injuries, as well as the relevance of legal precedents in reaching such a decision.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.A.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Kavita Kumari, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 4 and 5.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with G.R. No. 5636/2012 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 283/12 whereby the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

3. The case was instituted pursuant to the statement of the informant alleging therein that on 10.10.2012 at about 3 p.m. Ox of Ratho Sahu was coming at home of the informant again and again. It is further alleged in the FIR that even when the informant was dragging his Ox from his house but again Ox was coming in the house of the informant. It is further alleged in the FIR that the informant with an intention to drag the Ox he had caused injury on the Ox by stick (danda) which had caused injury near eyes of the Ox and the Ox sustained slight injury on his eyes. It is further alleged that the informant had given information about that injury to Ratho Sahu then it has been alleged that wife of Ratho Sahu started abusing him. It is alleged that on 11.10.2012 at 11.30 a.m. while the informant was taking out milk of the cow at the house of Mahabir Sahu then in the meantime wife of Ratho Sahu namely Deoki Devi came to the village Sugnu, Upar Tola and assaulted on his head from back by stick (danda) which had caused injury on the head of the informant and blood was oozing from his head and the informant fell down. It is also alleged that she was threatening to kill him and with the intervention of the villagers that dispute was solved by the villagers and the informant was taken to the police station and accordingly FIR was lodged and he requested to take legal action regarding this.

4. Pursuant to the objection raised by Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State, the order dated 03.03.2022 was passed and in view of that order, I.A. No. 2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of wife and son of the deceased informant, namely, Namita Devi amd Vikash Kanshi respectively.

5. Learned counsel Ms. Kavita Kumari has appeared on behalf of wife and son of the deceased informant and she has filed Vakalatnama along with I.A. No. 2618 of 2022, which is meant for compromise.

6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier one joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 1362 of 2022 was filed on behalf of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 wherein it has been disclosed that the compromise has been made between the parties. He further submits that in view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the State, further joint compromise petition being I.A. No. 2618 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and wife and son of the deceased informant. He also submits that in that I.A., the prayer is also made for adding the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition.

7. In view of the above submissions and considering that the I.A. No. 2618 of 2022 has been affidavited by Sudama Kumar Sahu son of the petitioner and wife and son of the deceased informant namely Namita Devi and Vikash Kanshi respectively, the prayer with regard to adding the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 are is allowed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall array the wife and son of the deceased informant as opposite party nos. 4 and 5 in this petition, in course of the day.

9. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has been submitted under sections 341, 323, 307 IPC. This petition has been filed and the compromise has been entered into between