( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 1 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1224 of 2025 ------ 1. Abhishek Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Subodh Prasad. 2. Subodh Prasad @ Subadh Prasad, aged about 69 years, son of Late Gopal Saw. 3. Rekha Devi, aged about 58 years, wife of Subodh Prasad. 4. Nitesh Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Subodh Prasad. All are residents of Church Road, in front of Mahabir Mandir, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Daily Market, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Jyoti, aged about 33 years, wife of Pintu Saw, resident of Gyan Ganga Society, Flat No.B-402, Rahatani, P.O. and P.S. Kalebadi, District Pune, Maharashtra. 6. Puja Gourav Muchchhal, aged about 38 years, wife of Gourav Muchchhal. 7. Gaurav Muchchhal, aged about 40 years, son of Amarnath Muchchhal. Both are residents of Flat No.D-203, Purva Panorama, Kalena Agrahara, Banargatta Road, P.O. and P.S. Hulimabu, District Bangalore, Karnataka. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Arti Gupta, aged about 28 years, wife of Abhishek Kumar, daughter of Sanjay Prasad Gupta, presently residing at Laxmi Mohalla, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih, Jharkhand. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Nikhilesh Kr. Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shiv Prasad, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 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 in connection with Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.282 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the said case is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 3. 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.6893 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the petitioners submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that settlement has been arrived at between the parties at Mediation Centre, Giridih and the petitioners and opposite party no.2/informant have decided to get separated and one time settlement has been arrived at between the parties. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement, the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 have jointly filed divorce suit vide O.S. No.142 of 2025 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by way of mutual consent before the Family Court, Giridih. It is next submitted that settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the informant/opposite party no.2 is not willing to prosecute this case. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends as well as the well-wishers and the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and ( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 3 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 no public policy is involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 in connection with Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.282 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.282 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 5. 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:- “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 ( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 4 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 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 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 continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal ( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 5 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 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)” 6. 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 private dispute between the parties; the genesis of the occurrence being basically, the matrimonial dispute between the parties. 7. 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. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.282 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Giridih Nagar P.S. Case No.282 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352 & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 of the Dowry ( 2025:JHHC:15155 ) 6 Cr. M.P. No.1224 of 2025 Prohibition Act which is now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.6893 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of June, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj