(2025:JHHC:33655) 1 Cr. M.P. No. 2810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 2810 of 2025 ------ Aman Singh @ Aman Shekhar aged about 45 years, son of Anil Kumar Singh, resident of – 34, Nanak Nagar, Tinplate, PO & PS – Golmuri, District – East Singhbhum. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Renu Deep, wife of Raju Deep, resident of Namda Basti, line no. 1, near Paani Tanki, PO & PS – Golmuri, District – East Singhbhum. … Opp. Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Sudarshan Singh, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 936 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class at Jamshedpur. 3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Opp. Party by drawing attention of the Court to I.A. No. 12625 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of Pairvikar of the petitioner as well as the informant - Opp. Party no. 2 herself, that therein it has (2025:JHHC:33655) 2 Cr. M.P. No. 2810 of 2025 categorically been mentioned that the dispute between the informant and the petitioner has already been settled by way of compromise. Hence, the informant does not want to proceed with the case. It is then submitted that the genesis of the case is a petty dispute between the parties, hence the prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. The learned and special public prosecutor on behalf of the state submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the state has no objection to the prayer, as has been prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition by the parties. 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 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 (2025:JHHC:33655) 3 Cr. M.P. No. 2810 of 2025 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 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 basically arising out of a petty dispute. (2025:JHHC:33655) 4 Cr. M.P. No. 2810 of 2025 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak, hence, continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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 Golmuri P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 936 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No. 99 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 936 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No. 12625 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of November, 2025 AFR/ Aditi