1 W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 ------ 1. Nepal Mahto, s/o Manohar Mahto, aged 30 years, 2. Manohar Mahto, s/o Late Sabu Mahto, aged 62 years, 3. Simti Devi, w/o Manohar Mahto, aged 64 years, 4. Ganga Kumari, w/o Prakash Mahto @ Mrakash Chandra Mehata aged about- 31 years. All r/o Village Takaha, PO Uttasara, PS Petarwar, District Bokaro. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Kritichand Mahto, s/o Late Hiralal Mahto, r/o Karma Tola, Purnadih, PO & PS Kasmar, District Bokaro. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate Mr. A.K. Geasen, 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 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal prosecution being FIR of Petarwar P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.202 of 2023 involving the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, drawing attention of this court towards I.A. No.2844 of 2025 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the informant-respondent No.2, submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court after intervention of well-wishers. It is next submitted that no injury has been sustained by Ruby Devi, who is allegedly stated to have committed suicide. It is next submitted that the reason for commission of suicide was that they used to quarrel on the ground of frequent visit by Ruby Devi to her paternal house without any reason and information to her in laws. It is further submitted that no complaint was ever made earlier though the marriage of Ruby Devi was solemnized in the year 2015 and the occurrence took place in February, 2023. It is then submitted that the petitioner No.1 was not having any illicit relationship with the petitioner No.4. It is further jointly submitted that in view of the compromise, the informant-respondent No.2 and his family members have no grievance against the petitioners; hence, he does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant-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 chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal prosecution being FIR of Petarwar P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.202 of 2023, be quashed and set aside. 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 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 prosecution being FIR of Petarwar P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.202 of 2023. 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 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 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 does not relate any public policy 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 petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceeding would put the petitioners to great 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.214 of 2025 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 prosecution being FIR of Petarwar P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.202 of 2023 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal prosecution being FIR of Petarwar P.S. Case No.33 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.202 of 2023, 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.2844 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th of March, 2025 AFR/ Saroj