1. Ekraj Khan, aged about 49 years, son of Late Salim Khan 2. Mosarrat v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shahjahan Khatoon, aged about 44 years, wife of
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3225 of 2024 1. Ekraj Khan, aged about 49 years, son of Late Salim Khan 2. Mosarrat Khatoon, aged about 36 years, wife of Ekraj Khan 3. Jugnu Khatoon, aged about 29 years, wife of Md. Wahid Khan and daughter of Salim Khan All residents of Village Bhupatpur, P.O. Chamotha, P.S. Rajauli, District -Nawada (Bihar). .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shahjahan Khatoon, aged about 44 years, wife of Ekram Khan, resident of Village Bhupatpur, P.O. Chamotha, P.S. Rajauli, District –Nawada (Bihar). At present residing at Mirganj, P.O. –Mirganj, P.S. –Satgawana, District –Koderma. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State For O.P. No.2 By the Court:- : Mr. Sahil, Advocate : Mr. Sachin Mahto, Advocate : Mr. Saurabh Narayan, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Shubham Srivatsa, Advocate ….. 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2010, passed inter alia Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 1 ( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) against the petitioner by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, along with the orders dated 25.08.2017 and 06.11.2017 whereby and where under the learned trial court without following the due process of law has issued the process under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. along with the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 376 of 2010, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence involved in this case is punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.5923 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioners and the complainant-opposite party no.2, submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that upon intervention of mutual friends, family members and well- wishers, the matter has been settled between the parties and consequently the parties are not willing to continue with the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is next Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 2 ( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a dispute arising out of marital discord. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :- 11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) inherent Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 3 ( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) “61. … 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 Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 4 ( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) 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 (Emphasis supplied) the criminal proceeding.” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2010, passed inter alia against the petitioners by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, arising out of Complaint Case No. 376 of 2010, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.09.2010, passed inter alia against the petitioner by the learned S.D.J.M., Koderma arising out of Complaint Case No. 376 of 2010, pending in the court of Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 5 ( 2025:JHHC:34261 ) learned S.D.J.M., Koderma, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. 10. 11.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, the interlocutory application no. 5923 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th November, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 22/11/2025 Cr.M.P. No.3225 of 2024 6