W.P. (Cr.) No.183 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 183 of 2025 Prem Kumar Ravidas @ Prem Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Kali Das, resident of Village-Madangundi, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwara, Dist.-Koderma .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Zulekha Khatun, wife of Md. Minhaj Ansari, resident of Village of Madangundi, P.O. & P.S.-Chandwara, Dist.- Koderma …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sudarshan Singh, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.3445 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the W.P. (Cr.) No.183 of 2025 2 petitioner and the affidavit of the informant-respondent no. 2 that therein it has been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, after the intervention of well-wishers both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the informant has no grievance against the petitioner. It is next submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner of committing any act, deed or things which could have abetted the commission of suicide of the daughter of the informant-respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and except suspicion, there is no other material in the record to implicate the petitioner in this case. It is next jointly submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is then submitted that as compromise has entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Therefore, it is submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that State has no serious objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section W.P. (Cr.) No.183 of 2025 3 306/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the compromise between the parties. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat 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. W.P. (Cr.) No.183 of 2025 4 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 neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the W.P. (Cr.) No.183 of 2025 5 criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding, which has amicably been settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chandwara P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.3445 of 2025 is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 24th March, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-