[2026:JHHC:12616] 1 Cr. M.P. No.1075 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1075 of 2026 ------ Chandra Shekhar Dorai @ Chandrashekhar Dorai, aged about 38 years, Son of Yadumani Dorai @ Yadunath Dorai, Resident of Village- Dikubalkand, P.O. & P.S. – Kumardungi, Dist.- West Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Addl.P.P. For the Informant-Victim : Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate ------ 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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the First Information Report including the subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 62, 332(b), 115(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in the absence of the husband of the informant-victim entered into the house of the informant-victim and attempted to commit rape upon the informant-victim. On being protested by the informant-victim, the petitioner beat her causing bleeding injury to her and also threatened [2026:JHHC:12616] 2 Cr. M.P. No.1075 of 2026 the informant that if she discloses the incident to others, she will be done to death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the informant-victim jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.4998 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as the informant-victim and submit that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that during the pendency of the case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the court and entered into a settlement agreement which has been notarized; the copy of which has been filed along with this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is next submitted that the parties have resolved their dispute and good relations have been restored between them, hence, the informant-victim does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence arose out of misunderstanding because of previous business dispute and the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the informant- victim further submit 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report including the subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, be quashed and set aside. [2026:JHHC:12616] 3 Cr. M.P. No.1075 of 2026 5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the First Information Report including the subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025. 6. 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 [2026:JHHC:12616] 4 Cr. M.P. No.1075 of 2026 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 quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)” 7. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental [2026:JHHC:12616] 5 Cr. M.P. No.1075 of 2026 depravity is involved in this case rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties. The offences for which the First Information Report has been registered do not correspond to the allegations made in the same. 8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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. 9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the First Information Report including the subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 10. Accordingly, the First Information Report including the subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above. 11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. 12. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A. No.4998 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 29th of April, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 30/04/2026