IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.586 of 2026 ------

Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Yadav, aged about 18 years, son of Ramsakal Yadav, resident of village-Moriyawan Kurha, P.O.-

Gajhandi, P.S.-Telaiya, District-Koderma.

… Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Piyush Kumar, son of Pappu Kumar represented through his father as a natural guardian namely Pappu Kumar, son of Prakash Pandit, Resident of Village-Putto, Jogidih, P.O. & P.S.-Chandwara, District-Koderma.

… Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sudarshan 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 BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the said case is now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.3089 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the father of the opposite party No.2/informant and the father of the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that the informant has no grievance against the petitioner. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends and well-wishers and the dispute between the parties has been settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to public policy. 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 entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, 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 the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

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 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]