The High Court
Case Details
[2025:JHHC:34535] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3277 of 2025 ------ 1. M/s Quba Architectural Products Pvt. Ltd., through Authorised Representative Mohammad Kamil aged about 35 years son of Shamshuddin Kamil having its address at Kelashpur Road, Rudr Vihar, Lance No-2, Mahuwala Road, P.O. & P.S.- Mehuwala, Dist.- Dehradun, State- Uttarakhnd (248171), having its registered office at S1, 7th Floor, Pinnacle Business Park Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, P.O. & P.S.- Andheri East, Dist- Mumbai, Maharashtra (400093). 2. Mr. Dhiren Shah, aged about 46 years, son of Mansukh Shah, R/o- Model Town Society, 1/D-3, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Chakala, P.O.- MIDC S.O.- Andheri East, Dist- Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400093.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr. Vikash Sharma, aged bout 47 years son, of Vishnu Sharma having his residential address at Plot No-50, 4th Floor, Pocket- D, Amanvilas Luxuria, Sector- 89, Kheri Kalan (113), P.O. & P.S.- Kheri Kalan, District- Faridabad, Haryana- 121002. 4. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Rai @ Retesh Kumar Rai, aged about 33 years son of Ratnesh Kumar Rai, having its residential address at Ichauli, P.O. & P.S.- Mohammadabad, District: Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh – 233227. 5. Mr. Mohammad Kamil, aged about 35 years son of Shamshuddin Kamil having his address at Kelashpur Road, Rudr Vihar, Lane No- 2, Mehuwala Road, P.O. & P.S.- Mehuwala, Dist.- Dehradun, State- Uttarakhnd (248171). 6. Mr. Pankaj Gour @ Pankaj Gaud, about 36 years, son of Jaggannath, having his address at Pahiya Bansepur 1 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34535] Darwa, P.O. & P.S.- Atrauliya, Dist- Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh – 223223. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Sharma @ Abdishek Kumar Sharma, Proprietor of S.B. Enterprises, aged about 43 years, son of Gopal Sharma, R/o- 41, Kailash Nagar, Near Old N.M.L. Pilot Plant, Tata Fondry, Burmamines, P.O. & P.S. – Burmamines, District- East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Shirsh Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Mohit Mukul, Advocate (through V.C.) ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal prosecution/proceeding including the First Information Report, in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.02 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 341, 342, 427, 349 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Complaint Case No. 3705 of 2023 of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur. 2 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34535] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the informant-opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court towards I.A. No.15376 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the authorized representative of the petitioner No.1 who is also the petitioner No.5, and the petitioner No.2 to 4 and 6 as well as the informant – opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has been categorically mentioned that with the intervention of the well-wishers and common friends, both the parties have settled their dispute between them. It is next submitted that the present case arises out of the commercial transaction between the parties which has amicably been settled between them. In view of the compromise, the opposite party No.2-informant does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant next submit that the dispute between the parties is having a civil flavour and no public policy is involved in this case. It is further submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, 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. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal prosecution/proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, be quashed and set aside. 3 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34535] 5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal prosecution/proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.02 of 2024. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available 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 & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had 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:- justice. the ends of “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 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 inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342- 43, para 61) “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 4 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34535] the involving cases criminal proceedings criminal But 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 such quashing having offences. overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of from quashing, particularly the offences arising 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 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 the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offence involved in this case is not heinous offence nor is there any serious offence of mental 5 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025 [2025:JHHC:34535] depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties. 8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceeding would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal prosecution/proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution/proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Burmamines P.S. Case No.02 of 2024, is quashed and set aside. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 12. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No. 15376 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 26/11/2025 6 Cr. M.P. No.3277 of 2025