[2025:JHHC:37301] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1169 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1169 of 2020 ------ 1. Vikas Kumar @ Vikash Kumar, S/o Birendra Prasad Burnwal, aged about 34 years, Resident of House No. 376, Ward No. 7, Jhalpo, Moriyawan, Jumri Telaiya, P.O. Jumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District- Koderma, presently residing at RMZ ECO Word, Unit No. 101 & 102, Campus 6B, Sarjapura, Marathahalli, Outer Ring Road, P.O. and P.S. Marathahalli, Bengaluru- 560103, (Karnataka) 2. Birendra Prasad Burnwal, S/o Late Sukar Modi, aged about 75 years, Resident of House No. 376, Ward No. 7, Jhalpo, Moriyawan, Jumri Telaiya, P.O. Jumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District- Koderma. 3. Shakuntala Devi, W/o Birendra Prasad Burnwal, aged about 68 years, Resident of House No. 376, Ward No. 7, Jhalpo, Moriyawan, Jumri Telaiya, P.O. Jumri Telaiya, P.S. Teliya, District- Koderma. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kanchan Burnwal, D/o Raj Kumar, Resident of Vastu Bihar, Phase- 2, Road No. 04, Sundaram S.W.-2, Chira Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand, Pin Code- 827013 … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vineet Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Aprajita Mishra, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. [2025:JHHC:37301] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1169 of 2020 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 952 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the 3, 4 of the D.P. Act. 3. 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.1259 of 2022 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the informant-opposite party No.2 and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that there has been mediation between the parties and all the eight cases, going on between the parties including this case, has been settled between the parties, hence, the opposite party No.2 is not willing to continue with the prosecution 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 a personal dispute relating to matrimonial discord 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 proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 952 of 2018, be quashed and set aside. [2025:JHHC:37301] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1169 of 2020 4. Learned Addl.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 proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 952 of 2018. 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 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 [2025:JHHC:37301] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1169 of 2020 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 offence involved in this case is not heinous offence nor is there any serious offence of mental [2025:JHHC:37301] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1169 of 2020 depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties relating to matrimonial discord. 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 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. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 952 of 2018, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 952 of 2018, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 11. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No. 1259 of 2022 is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 08th of December, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 15/12/2025