( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 875 of 2025 1. Danish Akhtar, aged about 31 years, Son of Md. Mashum Akhtar @ Masoom Akhtar, 2. Kaushar Begam, aged about 54 years, Wife of Md. Mashum Akhtar @ Masoom Akhtar, 3. Md. Mashum Akhtar @ Md. Massom Akhtar @ Md. Masoom Akhtar, aged about 68 years, Son of Late Zahid Hussain, 4. Musarat Praveen @ Mosarrat Perween, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Md. Mashum Akhtar @ Masoom Akhtar Petitioner No. 1 to 4 Resident of village –Pasha Colony, P.O. & P.S. – Khunti, District –Khunti. 5. Israt Praveen @ Ishrat Parween, aged about 36 years, Wife of Aslam Ansari, Resident of village Ita Narkopi, P.O. & P.S. –Itki, District – Ranchi. .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ruksana Khatoon, wife of Danish Akhtar, Daughter of Ataur Rahman, Resident of village –Konmerla, P.O. –Konmerla, P.S. – Jaldega, District -Simdega. …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Manjula Upadhyay, Advocate : Ms. Nazia Rashid, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. ( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 2 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 345 of 2020 including the order dated 20.06.2022 whereby and where under charge has been framed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/34, 417/34, 323/34, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly submits that during the Special Mediation Drive of this Court, a settlement has been arrived at between the parties with the intervention of the Mediator of the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, the report of which is annexed with this brief in the case record. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the opposite party no.2-informant does not want to proceed with this case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the settlement, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. ( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 3 4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 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 @ 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 4 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 5 quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. 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 matrimonial 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. 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 Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 345 of 2020 including the order dated 20.06.2022 whereby and where under charge has been framed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/34, 417/34, 323/34, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Simdega Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 345 of 2020 including the order dated 20.06.2022 whereby and where under charge has been framed against the petitioners for having committed the offences punishable under Section 498A/34, 417/34, 323/34, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners. ( 2025:JHHC:28570 ) Cr.M.P. No.875 of 2025 6 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 4th September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/