IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2296 of 2023 ------

Syed Sazia Shakil, aged about 27 years, D/o- Md. Shakil, Wife of Ahmad Rumani, Resident of Nurjahan Manzil, Dhatkidih, Market Area, P.O. & P.S. – Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ahmad Rumani, Son of Late Md. Tayyab, Resident of Road No.6B, House No.10, Opp. Bank of India, Jawaharnagar, P.O. & P.S.-

Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand … Opposite Parties ------

For the Petitioner : Ms. Seema Kumari Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the First Information Report including all the subsequent proceeding arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.117 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class at Jamshedpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.13384 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner 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 settled their dispute with the intervention of near relatives and friends. It is next jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. 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 First Information Report including all the subsequent proceeding arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.117 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class at Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned 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 First Information Report including all the subsequent proceeding arising out of Mango P.S. Case No.117 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class at Jamshedpur.

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 Benc