XXX 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 BNSS 2023 with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report being Senha P.S. case no. 54 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections  85,  64(1)  62,  115(2),  89,  352,  351  (2),  3(5)  of the  BNS and Section 3/4 of the D.P.Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and chargesheet has not been submitted as of yet.

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite  party no. 2 jointly  drawing attention of this court to  I.A. No.  216  of  2026  which  is  supported  by  separate  affidavits  of the petitioner no. 3 for himself as well as the petitioner no. 1, 2 and 4 as also the informant – opp. Party no. 2 wherein it has categorically been stated that compromise has been arrived at between  the  petitioners and the informant–opp.  Party  no.  2 and the petitioner No. 1 and opp. Party no.2, have jointly filed the Original Matrimonial Suit no. 831 of 2025 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of their marriage, hence, the opposite party no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the case. Therefore, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in the case, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with Senha P.S. case no. 54 of 2025 will amount to abuse of the process of law and no  purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into between the parties.  It is then jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report being  Senha  P.S.  case  no.  54  of  2025,  be  quashed  and  set aside against the petitioners.

Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report being Senha P.S. case no. 54 of 2025 in view of the compromise between the parties.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and 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 :-

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)

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 persons to great oppression  and  prejudice  and  extreme  injustice  would  be  caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. The dispute between the parties is a purely private dispute because of marital discord between the parties and no public policy is involved in the facts of this case.

In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal proceeding  would  tantamount  to  the  abuse  of  the  process  of  law and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners be put to an end.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding and the First Information Report being Senha P.S. case no. 54 of 2025, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the I.A. No. 216 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.