2026 Supreme(Jhk) 407
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Richa Goyal, daughter of Sanjay Goyal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.3796 of 2025
Decided on : 06-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA: S.3(5), S.316(4), S.318(4)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.482
Headnote
(B) Criminal proceedings - Compounding distinct from inherent powers - Power wide but guided by nature/gravity of offence, civil disputes/family/commercial matters amenable to quashing post-settlement (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
Criminal miscellaneous petition filed to quash proceedings in case registered for specified offences under B.N.S, 2023, investigation ongoing, no charge-sheet filed. Parties reached settlement via interlocutory application supported by affidavits of petitioners and informant, dispute purely civil, no public policy involved, state no objection to quashing.
Findings of Court:
Entire criminal proceedings quashed and set aside (Para 10).
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings for non-heinous offences arising from civil dispute should be quashed upon full settlement between offender and victim.
Ratio Decidendi: Offences not heinous or of mental depravity but civil in nature; complete settlement makes conviction remote, continuation amounts to abuse of process causing great oppression, prejudice and injustice (Paras 7-9).
Result: Petition allowed.
For the Appellant :Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. Mr. Amitabh Prasad, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under bnss 528 to quash proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. settlement reached in civil dispute; no objection. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. sc guidelines permit quashing non-heinous cases on compromise. (Para 6) |
| 4. civil dispute; conviction remote post-settlement. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. proceedings quashed; petition allowed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
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 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (4), 316 (5), 318 (4), 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.17222 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of all the three petitioners as well as the informant/opposite party No.2 of this case and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have reached at a settlement in respect of the dispute for which this case was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Spl. 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 initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
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 com