Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Akash Kumar Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 897 of 2025
Decided on : 28-04-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.147, S.148, S.149, S.307
ARMS ACT: S.27, S.35
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
Headnote
(B) Principle of Law - Settlements - The Supreme Court established in Narinder Singh's case that High Courts may quash proceedings if compromise is present, but must ensure the nature of offences is not heinous, and abuse of process is prevented. (Paras 5, 29.1-29.7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in a case regarding violent offences, asserting a genuine compromise had been reached with the victim, mitigating the case's serious nature. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the ongoing criminal proceedings should be quashed due to complete settlement, asserting that the possibility of conviction was remote and continuation was unjust to the petitioner. (Para 8)
Issues: The court addressed whether the settlement between the parties warranted quashing of the FIR and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. (Paras 3, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that non-heinous, private disputes with successful compromises could lead to quashing of proceedings, especially where conflict bears no public interest. (Paras 7, 8)
Result: The petition to quash FIR and proceedings was granted.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Praful Jojo Addl.. PP, Mr. Rakesh Kumar , Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 528 (Para 2) |
| 2. compromise between parties leads to quashing proceedings (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. criteria for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's decision to quash proceedings based on compromise (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final order and disposal of the petition (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
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 BNSS , 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the entire F.I.R. in connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No.29 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, 120 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under Section 27 & 35 of the ARMS ACT , in which the investigation is still going on, which is now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No. 5538 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the informant/ victim/opposite party No.2- Niraj Yadav and the Pairvikar of the petitioners and submits that therein it has been mentioned that both the parties have compromised the case and good faith and confidence has been restored between the parties, hence, the informant does not want to proceed with the case. It is next jointly submitted that the parties have compromised the matter outside the court and the informant had given the name of the petitioner in confusion but later on he came to know the reality and then realized his mistake. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the self-same occurrence, the co-accused of this case namely Bachchu Yadav has instituted Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No.28 of 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners next 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 chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak as the instant case is a case of mistaken identity. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including the entire F.I.R. in connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S. Case No.29 of 2022 which is now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, be quashed and set aside.
4. 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 and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings including the entire F.I.R. in connection with Sahibganj (M) P.S.Case No.29 of 2022 which is now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.
5. 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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of 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 Co
