( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2992 of 2025 1. Vidya Devi, aged about 60 years, W/o Jaynarayan Singh 2. Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithun Singh, aged about 30 years, S/o Jaynarayan Singh 3. Jay Narayan Singh, aged about 65 years, S/o Late Baiju Singh, All R/o Jhinjhari Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. –Giridih (T), District – Giridih. 4. Gudiya Devi, aged about 30 years, W/o Jogendra Singh, R/o Village –Mangrodih, P.O. & P.S. –Giridih (M), District –Giridih. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Archana Devi, W/o Late Awadhesh Pandey, R/o Village – Bidhanbag, P.O.+P.S. –Bidhanbag, District –Burdhwan (West Bengal). …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate : Mr. Mac Lincon Emmanuel Kujur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition. ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 2 3. Permission is accorded. 4. The petitioners are directed to incorporate the name of the informant as opposite party no.2 of this criminal miscellaneous petition during the course of the day. 5. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2022, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.3 –Jay Narayan Singh. 7. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is rejected as not pressed so far as the petitioner no.3 –Jay Narayan Singh is concerned. 8. So far as the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 are concerned, at the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 that the investigation of the case is going on against the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Final Report has not yet been submitted but charge sheet has been submitted against the co-accused husband of the deceased; who is not the petitioner before this Court. ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 3 9. So far as the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 are concerned, it is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 and the learned counsel for the informant opposite party no.2, drawing attention of this Court to annexure -4 of the brief which is the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of Sessions Judge, Giridih, that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have compromised the matter and the informant does not want to proceed with the case and because of some mis- information, this case was instituted but the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 have not committed the offences. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no.2, drawing attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed today that therein also the informant has categorically stated that the informant came to know of the fact that her daughter was a short-tempered lady and she committed suicide and the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 have no role in commission of the suicide of her daughter. It is next submitted that in the trial of the co-accused husband of the deceased also, the informant who was examined as P.W.5 has categorically stated that the husband of her deceased daughter was maintaining her daughter satisfactorily and that the son-in-law of the informant is innocent. It is next submitted that the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 of that case have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile and even though the prosecution was ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 4 permitted to put leading questions to them, still they did not support the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 10. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has 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 ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 5 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 ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 6 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) 12. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2022, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 only. ( 2025:JHHC:32140 ) Cr.M.P. No.2992 of 2025 7 14. Accordingly, the F.I.R. as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 82 of 2022, now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4 only. 15. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th October, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- Uploaded on 30/10/2025