Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5957 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 September, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                 [ 2025:JHHC:28802]




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 2674 of 2025

                      Satyendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 43 years, son of Sri
                      Umesh Yadav, resident of village & P.O.- Jalim, P.S. &
                      Dist.- Latehar                     ...... Petitioner
                                        Versus
                      1.

The State of Jharkhand

2. Shilki Devi, W/o Xavior Bhagat, R/o village-

                         Bhusur, P.O. - Jalim, P.S. & Dist.- Latehar
                                                         ..... Opposite Parties



                  For the Petitioner       : Mr. J.S. Singh , Adv.
                                             Mr. Randhir Kumar , Adv.
                  For the State            : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. PP
                  For the informant        : Ms. Pragati Prasad,Adv.



                                   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 BNSS, 2023 with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Latehar P.S. case no. 145 of 2025 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar involving the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023.

3. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 drawing attention of this court to the I.A. No. 12473 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the pairvikar / brother of the petitioner as well as the informant - opp. Party no. 2, that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that compromise has been arrived at between the parties during pendency of the case and consequent upon the said compromise, the opposite party no. 2 is not

[ 2025:JHHC:28802]

interested in pursuing the case, hence, the chance of the conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further submitted that, otherwise also there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner, which could have led the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, on the merits of the case also the offence punishable under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. 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 Latehar P.S. case no. 145 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, hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Latehar P.S. case no. 145 of 2025 , be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

4. Learned Spl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Latehar P.S. case no. 145 of 2025 against the petitioner in view of the compromise between the parties.

5. 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 :-

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

[ 2025:JHHC:28802]

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)

6. 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 person 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.

7. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,

[ 2025:JHHC:28802]

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 petitioner be put to an end.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Latehar P.S. case no. 145 of 2025, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and in view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the I.A. No. 12473 of 2025 also stands disposed of.

10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned through FAX @ Rs. 50/- per page to be borne by the petitioner.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 18th September, 2025 Smita /AFR