1 W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 ------ Bulet Khan @ Mustafa Khan aged about 33 years son of Late Salim Khan, resident of Bhupatpur, P.O.- Chamotha, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada, Bihar. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Shajahan Khatoon, wife of Ekram Khan, daughter of Md. Sadique Khan, resident of village- Bhupatpur, P.O.- Chamotha, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada, Bihar at present resident of village- Mirganj, P.O.- Mirganj, P.S.- Satgawan, District- Koderma. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II Ms. Sunita Kumari, AC to Sr. SC-II For the Resp. No.2 : 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 Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.376 of 2010 of the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma involving the offences punishable under Sections 498A/323/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, drawing attention of this court towards I.A. No.2070 of 2025 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavit of the pairvikar of the petitioner, submit that erroneously, because of misprinting, the pairvikar has been written as the petitioner in page No.5 of this interlocutory application. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the complainant- respondent No.2, that in the said interlocutory application, it has categorically been mentioned that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute after intervention of well-wishers and other family members. In view of the compromise, the complainant-respondent No.2 has no grievance against the petitioner; hence, she does not want to proceed with the complaint case. It is next submitted that the petitioner is the dewar (brother-in-law) of the complainant and the complainant has resumed conjugal life with her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant- respondent No.2 further submit that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next 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 chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.376 of 2010 of the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.376 of 2010 of the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 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 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.; 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 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. 7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceeding 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. 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.141 of 2025 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.376 of 2010 of the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.376 of 2010 of the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.) stands allowed. 11. In view of disposal of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), I.A. No.2070 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 12th of March, 2025 AFR/ Saroj