Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2081
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Vidya Prakash Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. M.P. No. 638 of 2025
Decided On : 24-06-2025
For the Appellant : Dhirendra Kr. Deo
For the Respondents: Vishwanath Roy, Satish Kumar
The court may quash criminal proceedings if parties reach a compromise in cases lacking public interest, reaffirming the need for private disputes to not unnecessarily burden the judicial system.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 379, 452, 448 & 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners invoked the court's jurisdiction to quash a case due to an amicable settlement with the informant, who no longer wishes to pursue the charges - The court recognized that the dispute is private, with no public policy at stake - The continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent jurisdiction - The court's power to quash proceedings, based on the need to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, was reaffirmed, with reference to precedent. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The criminal miscellaneous petition was filed to quash proceedings connected to allegations of rioting and theft, arising from a personal dispute. Both parties settled their differences amicably, leading to the informant’s request not to pursue the case any further.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the offences were not heinous and the dispute was private, identifying the continuation of proceedings as causing undue hardship to the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding should be quashed based on the amicable settlement between the parties and the nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the compromise between the parties justified the quashing of the proceedings, asserting that continuation would be contrary to justice.
Result: Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed against petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction invoked to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. amicable settlement between parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. high court's authority based on compromise. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. criminal proceedings quashed based on private dispute. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. criminal miscellaneous petition allowed. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3300 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 379, 452, 448 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2021 passed in the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, whereby and where under cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter-alia against the petitioners and accordingly summons were issued, as also for quashing the order dated 01.02.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh through which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued inter-alia against the petitioners in connection with the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.5803 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits as well as supplementary affidavit dated 10.06.2025 sworn in by the Parivikar of the petitioners of this case as well as the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 as also the informant opposite party no.2, submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that there has been an amicable settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, on efforts being made by the well-wishers and the reputed persons of the society and consequent upon the mediation. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with this case. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as compromise has been entered into between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak; therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition.
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 , (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
