Shayam Kumar @ Sumit Kumar @ Shyam Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard the parties.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R., charge sheet and cognizance order dated 21.08.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Ratu P.S. Case No. 415 of 2024 involving the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 87 of the B.N.S., 2023.

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. 592 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the Pairvikar of the petitioner as well as the victim girl and submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioner’s family as well  as  the  Opposite  party  No.2’sfamily  are  known  to  each  other  since several years and both the petitioner and the victim were also personally known to each other since their school days. It was further jointly submitted that the petitioner and the victim girl were having love affairs with each other since long; with the family members of the Opposite Party No 2, were very much aware of the love affairs in between them. It is further jointly submitted that the victim girl, due to love affairs between  them  has  already  solemnized  marriage  with  the  petitioner  in  a temple and both are  residing together as husband and wife in  the house of the petitioner and has been blessed with a baby on 23.11.2025 and both the petitioner and the victim have become major. 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. 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 chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the F.I.R.,  charge  sheet  and cognizance order  dated  21.08.2025 as  well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Ratu P.S. Case No. 415 of 2024, be quashed and set aside.

Learned Special P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the F.I.R., charge sheet and cognizance order dated 21.08.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Ratu P.S. Case No. 415 of 2024.

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 neither heinous offence nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to personal dispute relating to love affairs.

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 with the victim.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where  F.I.R,  charge  sheet  and  cognizance  order  dated  21.08.2025  as  well as the  entire  criminal  proceeding  in  connection with the  Ratu P.S.  Case No. 415 of 2024, as prayed for by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the F.I.R., charge sheet and cognizance order dated 21.08.2025 as well as the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the  Ratu  P.S.  Case  No.  415  of  2024  is  quashed  and  set  aside  against  the petitioner.

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

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.592 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P, Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of being infructuous.