The High Court
Case Details
( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ------ 1. Pammi Devi, aged about 27 years, daughter of Govind Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.-Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Arbind Sahu, aged about 30 years, son of Govind Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.-Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Gobind Sahu, aged about 53 years, son of Late Bindeshwar Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.-Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Bhunki Devi @ Sarita Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Govind Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.- Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Khushboo Devi, aged about 26 years, daughter of Govind Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.-Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. Vikesh Sahu @ Vikesh Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Govind Sahu, permanent resident of village-Masmano, Thakur, P.O.- Masmani, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand, presently residing at Chutia, P.O. and P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 1 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) 2. Sunil Sahu, aged about 31 years, son of Bacchan Sahu, resident of village-Bhitha, P.O. Bhitha, P.S.-Bhandra, District-Lohardaga, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate : Mr. Nawin Kr. Singh, Addl.P.P. : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, Advocate ------ 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 a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report lodged in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S. of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.14823 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the Pairvikar of the petitioners, wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends as well as 2 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) the well-wishers and the dispute between the parties have been settled. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled outside the court and they have no grievance against each other and both the parties do not want to proceed with the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner next 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 chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report lodged in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S. of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report lodged in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S. of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 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 3 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) 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:- “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 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 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 from quashing, particularly the offences arising 4 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) 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 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 criminal proceeding.” the (Emphasis supplied)” full and complete to quash 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to a petty 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 case would put the petitioners 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. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information 5 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025 ( 2025:JHHC:34586 ) Report lodged in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S. of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report lodged in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the B.N.S. of the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 11.
Decision
In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.14823 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of November, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj Uploaded on 03/12/2025 6 Cr. M.P. No.3300 of 2025