Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 427
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Mahanand Kumar Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (Cr.) No. 203 of 2025
Decided On : 19-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Jai Prakash, Mr. Ramesh Kumar
The High Court may quash FIRs in cases of non-heinous offences where parties have reached a compromise, preventing abuse of process and securing justice.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363 and 366A - Writ Petition filed to quash FIR registered for alleged offences - Parties entered into a compromise; victim does not wish to proceed with the case - No public policy involved; dispute is private in nature - State has no objection to quashing the FIR. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - The High Court may quash FIRs based on compromise if the offences are not heinous and do not involve serious mental depravity - The nature of the crime and the parties' resolution of the dispute are crucial factors. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the IPC, with both parties confirming a compromise and the victim's desire not to pursue the case. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The FIR is quashed as the case does not involve serious offences and the dispute has been amicably resolved. (Paras 7, 8)
Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed due to a compromise between the parties and the nature of the offences involved. (Paras 3, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that in cases where the offences are not serious or heinous and the parties have settled their dispute, the High Court can quash the FIR to prevent abuse of process and secure justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: Writ petition allowed; FIR quashed.
JUDGMENT :
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 FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.2467 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the father of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2-informant and the victim of the case submits that therein it has been categorically mentioned that the parties have entered into a compromise and the victim does not want to proceed with the case. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, the parties have accepted the marriage of the petitioner with the alleged victim hence, the informant and the victim have no grievance against the petitioner and does not want to proceed with the case. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that because of some misunderstanding and confusion this case was instituted. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and the dispute between the parties is a private dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024, 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 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 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
