( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 840 of 2026 Arup Chatterjee @ Arup Chaterjee, aged about 52 years, S/o Anup Chatterjee, R/o Shri Krishna Enclave, North Office Para, 2nd Floor, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. –Doranda, District -Ranchi. .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Anil Kumar Tripathi, S/o Bihari Tripathi, R/o House No. 93 Sumitra Sadan, Nawadih Bartand, P.O. –B. Polytechnic, P.S. & District –Dhanbad. …. Opp. Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arpita Sinha, Advocate ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 908 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 4197 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well the order taking cognizance dated 28.07.2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima ( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 2 facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that that the case is next fixed on 11.05.2026 for appearance and charge has not yet been framed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No. 4351 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner as well the informant-opposite party no.2 of the case summit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, with the intervention of well-wishers, family members and friends, good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have decided to bury their differences and settle the dispute amicably to maintain peace and harmony. It is next submitted that better sense has prevailed between the parties and the informant-opposite party no.2 has realized that the petitioner was named due to misunderstanding and confusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. It is lastly submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a ( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 3 private dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. 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 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 ( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 4 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 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 ( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 5 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) 7. 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 compromise between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 908 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. 4197 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well the order taking cognizance dated 28.07.2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 908 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No. ( 2026:JHHC:10471 ) Cr.M.P. No.840 of 2026 6 4197 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well the order taking cognizance dated 28.07.2022 whereby and where under the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 11. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No. 4351 of 2026 is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 6th April, 2026 AFR/Sonu- Uploaded on 21.04.2026