IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.3514 of 2025 ------

Md. Wasim, aged about 38 years, son of Md. Shamim, resident of Bari Bazar, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. –Sadar Chaibasa, District –

Singhbhum West.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Munna Purty, son of Late Soma Purty, resident of village – Karlajori Jumulsai, P.O. Narsanda, P.S. Muffasil, Chaibasa, District –

Singhbhum West. … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.60 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly draws the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.16274 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the Pairvikar of the petitioner and the informant -opposite party no.2 and submits that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that the informant-opposite party no.2 has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and settled their dispute outside the court with the intervention of common friends and family member and as such, the informant-opposite party no.2 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 opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

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 allowing the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

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 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 Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement