Rohit Sahu @ Rohit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 4338 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4338 Jhar
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Rohit Sahu @ Rohit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 June, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                     (2025:JHHC:17094)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No.1427 of 2025
                                       ------

1. Rohit Sahu @ Rohit Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Sri Birendra Sahu, resident of Village- Pachamba, Ward No.1, P.O.- Pachamba, P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih;

2. Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka @ Priyank, aged about 22 years, daughter of Sri Chhotu Saw, resident of Village- Duniser, P.O.- Kisgo, P.S.- Devri, Dumardiha, District- Giridih;

3. Kritika Rana @ Kritika, aged about 21 years, daughter of Ashok Kumar, resident of 545, Gandhi School Road, Near Nauwa Talab, Ward No.23, P.O. & P.S.- Jhumri Tilaiya, District- Koderma ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Victim 1

3. Victim 2 ... Opposite Parties

------

             For the Petitioners           : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
             For the State                 : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3        : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
                                             ------
                                       PRESENT
                 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 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal

proceeding with all consequences in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.217 of

2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 303

(2), 116 (2), 74, 351 (2), 352, 74, 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

(2025:JHHC:17094)

Atrocities) Act, 1989; which is now pending in the court of learned Additional

Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite

party Nos.2 and 3 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory

Application No.6370 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of

the petitioners, the informant as well as one of the two victims and submit that

therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioners and the

opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have amicably settled their disputes and have

buried their hatchets without any threat, coercion and undue influence and

with absolute consent of the parties. It is next jointly submitted that therein it

has also been mentioned that due to some confusion amongst the friends, this

case was instituted against the petitioners but good relationship has been

restored between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is

involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is

submitted that the entire criminal proceeding with all consequences in

connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.217 of 2025 which is now pending in the

court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge,

SC/ST Act, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the

compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing and

(2025:JHHC:17094)

setting aside the entire criminal proceeding with all consequences in

connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.217 of 2025 which is now pending in the

court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge,

SC/ST Act, Ranchi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, relies

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 para-

17 of which reads as under:-

"17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482CrPC."

and submits that the prayer of the petitioners, as prayed for in the instant

Cr.M.P., be allowed.

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 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.

7. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the victim,

the possibility of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak and

continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression

(2025:JHHC:17094)

and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing