Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1447 (JHR)

Vidya Prakash Jain v. State of Jharkhand

2025-06-24

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3300 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 379, 452, 448 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2021 passed in the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, whereby and where under cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter-alia against the petitioners and accordingly summons were issued, as also for quashing the order dated 01.02.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh through which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued inter-alia against the petitioners in connection with the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.5803 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits as well as supplementary affidavit dated 10.06.2025 sworn in by the Parivikar of the petitioners of this case as well as the petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3 as also the informant opposite party no.2, submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that there has been an amicable settlement of the dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, on efforts being made by the well-wishers and the reputed persons of the society and consequent upon the mediation. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the informant does not want to proceed with this case. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as compromise has been entered into between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak; therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9 SCC 641 has 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 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 pre-dominatingly 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. 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) 6. 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. The dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. 7. The dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3300 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 379, 452, 448 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2021 passed in the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, whereby and where under cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter-alia against the petitioners and accordingly summons were issued, as well as the order dated 01.02.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh through which non- bailable warrant of arrest has been issued inter-alia against the petitioners in connection with the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 3300 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 1090 of 2015) registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 379, 452, 448 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also the order taking cognizance dated 20.03.2021 passed in the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015 arising out of Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 282 of 2015, whereby and where under cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 452, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken inter-alia against the petitioners and accordingly summons were issued, as well as the order dated 01.02.2024, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh through which non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued inter-alia against the petitioners in connection with the said G.R. Case No. 3300 of 2015, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 10. 9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. 10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.5803 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.