Jissu Singh @ Jishu Singh @ Jishu Kumar @ Jisu Singh @ Jisu Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

I.A. No.916 of 2026

Heard the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application  has  been  filed  with  a prayer  to  amend  the  instant  Cr.M.P. by making the additional prayer of quashing the charge-sheet No.304 of 2025 dated 18.12.2025 along with the cognizance order dated 19.12.2025. It  is  further  submitted  that  due  to  inadvertence,  the  said  prayer  could not be made at the time of filing of the instant Cr.M.P. It is next submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the instant Cr.M.P. It is then submitted that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced.

Considering the facts of the case, the prayer to carry out the proposed amendment as prayed for in the instant interlocutory application, is allowed.

The petitioner files a consolidated Cr.M.P. incorporating the proposed amendments allowed by this order and the copy of the same has been served upon the learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

Let the same be kept in the record.

Accordingly,this interlocutoryapplication stands allowed.

Cr.M.P. No.56 of 2026

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 proceeding, as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.113 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3978 of 2025, by which on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the police, the learned Judicial Magisrate-1st Class, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 127 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 132, 352, 351 (2), 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023; Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 27 of the Arms Act; and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

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.253 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the Pairvikar-cum-mother of the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.2/informant/victim and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute and a joint compromise petition has been filed. It is next jointly submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of firingfrom any fire arm. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a  private dispute having a  civil flavour 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 entire criminal proceeding, as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 in connection with Jorapokhar P.S.  Case  No.113  of  2025  corresponding  to  G.R.  Case  No.3978  of  2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.

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 and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding, as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.113 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3978 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad.

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 complaint in exercise of its  inherent  jurisdiction  is  distinct  and  different  from the  power  given  to  a  criminal  court  for  compounding the  offences  under  Section  320  of  the  Code.  Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice,  or  (ii)  to  prevent  abuse  of  the  process  of  any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute  would  depend  on  the  facts  and  circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of  the crime.  Heinous and serious  offences of  mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation  to  the  offences  under  special  statutes  like  the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view,  because  of  the  compromise  between  the  offender and  the  victim,  the  possibility  of  conviction  is  remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement  and  compromise  with  the  victim.  In  other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)”

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor is there serious offence of mental depravity rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties.

Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise withthe victim.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a  fit case where  the  entire  criminal  proceeding,  as  well  as  the  charge-sheet  and the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.113 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3978 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding, as well as the charge-sheet and the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2025 in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.113 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.3978 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.

In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.253 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.