(2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 1. Nitesh Yadav @ Nitesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of late Mahendra Yadav 2. Mahesh Yadav, aged about 26 years, son of Ratho Yadav 3. Duleshwar Yadav @ Duleshwar Kumar Yadav, aged about 31 years, son of Tunki Gope 4. Ravi Yadav @ Boby @ Prakash Yadav, aged about 36 years, son of Charku Yadav @ Birchan Yadav 5. Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Basudev Gope 6. Suraj Yadav @ Suraj Kumar Yadav, aged about 27 years, son of Raghunath Gope 7. Tinku Yadav @ Ashish Kumar Yadav, aged about 28 years, son of Lala Gope 8. Sandeep Yadav @ Sandeep Kumar Yadav, aged about 24 years, son of Chandrika Gop 9. Bishal Yadav @ Vishal Yadav, aged about 15 years, son of Rameshwar Yadav 10. Yashwant Yadav @ Yashwant Kumar Yadav, aged about 26 years, son of Lala Gope 11. Akash Yadav, aged about 22 years, son of late Sugan Gope 12. Karan Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Jitendra Yadav 13. Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Sharan Yadav 14. Santu Yadav @ Santu Kumar Yadav, aged about 21 years, son of Arjun Yadav 15. Vikash Yadav @ Bikash Yadav @ Phus, aged about 28 years, son of Buchu Yadav 16. Aman Yadav @ Aman Kumar, aged about 18 years, son of Ashok Yadav 17. Ashok Yadav, aged about 40 years, son of late Basudev Yadav All are residents of Village-Jhirki, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.-Gomia Kathara O.P., Dist.-Bokaro …... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Upendra Kumar Das, son of Bhola Ravidas, resident of Jhirki, P.O.-Kathara, P.S.-Gomia, Kathara O.P., Dist.-Bokaro ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl. P.P For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 2 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer for quashing the FIR being Gomia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 9 of 2023 involving the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 427, 452 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not press the prayer on behalf of the petitioner no.17-Ashok Yadav. 4. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the FIR as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition is rejected as not pressed so far as the petitioner no. 17 is concerned. 5. So far as the petitioner nos. 1 to 16 are concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the investigation of the case is still going on against them and charge sheet has not yet been submitted. 6. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 16 and the learned counsel for the informant-opposite (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 3 party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.6261 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioners as well as the informant-opposite party no. 2 that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the genesis of the occurrence is a scuffle which took place during the immersion of goddess Saraswati. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 16 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that with the intervention of respected members of society and village elders, both the parties have amicably resolved their differences and entered into a written compromise outside the Court. It is also jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 16 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that there was a counter case for the selfsame occurrence which also ended up in a compromise being Gomia P.S. Case No. 09 of 2023 and some exaggeration were made in the FIR to made the case a serious one, but the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1 to 16 and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the full and final settlement between the petitioner nos.1 to 16 and the opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.2 is not desirous to proceed with the case and the chance of the conviction of the petitioner nos. 1 to 16 is remote and bleak (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 4 therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in view of the compromise between the parties. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, in paragraph 29, has laid down the principles by which, the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties, and exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings which, reads as under: “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 5 While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 6 the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, because of some misunderstanding, this case has been instituted. In the facts of the case, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is needless to mention here that in view of compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner nos.1 to 16 is remote and bleak and continuation of the case would put the accused-petitioner nos.1 to 16 to oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused by not quashing this criminal case. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of law and in the interest of the justice, the FIR being Gomia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 9 of 2023 be quashed qua the petitioner nos.1 to 16 only. (2026:JHHC:14663) Cr.M.P. No. 486 of 2026 7 10. Accordingly, the FIR being Gomia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023, corresponding to SC/ST Case No. 9 of 2023, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner nos.1 to 16 only. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 12. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.6261 of 2026 is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 13th May, 2026 AFR/Gunjan/- Uploaded on 14/05/2026