[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Arun Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                      [2026:JHHC:10051]




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No.3204 of 2023
                                      ------

1. Arun Kumar Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of Amresh Pandey,

2. Priyanshu Raj, aged about 25 years, son of Arun Kumar Pandey, Both residents of Flat No. 3, Meerayan, Reveet Colony, Near Sidhu Kanu School, Dimna, Mango, P.O. Mango, P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Vibha Devi, wife of Shakti Singh, resident of Hill Veu Colony, Dmina, P.O. Dimna, P.S. MGM, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate

------

                                        PRESENT
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-     I.A. No. 4493 of 2026

            1.     Heard the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory

application has been filed with the prayer to amend the instant

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition by incorporating the additional prayer

of quashing the charge sheet dated 21.10.2023 filed in connection with

M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case

No. 1627 of 2023 of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,

[2026:JHHC:10051]

East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur as also to quash the order dated

01.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, In-charge, East

Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and where under cognizance of the

offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354B, 447, 504, 506 and

34 of the Indian Penal Code have been taken by the learned Judicial

Magistrate in connection with the said case. It is next submitted that the

amendment is necessitated because of the developments which took

place after filing of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is

then submitted that the proposed amendment will not change the

nature and character of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. It is

further submitted that unless the amendment as proposed in this

interlocutory application is allowed, the petitioners will be highly

prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this

interlocutory application be allowed.

3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the prayer to carry out the

amendment as proposed in this interlocutory application is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the consolidated

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition today in the court.

5. Keep the same in the record.

6. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

1. Heard the parties.

[2026:JHHC:10051]

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings

including the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, In-charge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection

with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.

Case No. 1627 of 2023 whereby and where under cognizance has been

taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, East Singhbhum at

Jamshedpur for having committed the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 325, 341, 354B, 447, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

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

the opposite party No.2/informant jointly draw the attention of this

Court towards Interlocutory Application No.4567 of 2026 which is

supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the

opposite party No.2/informant and submit that therein, it has

categorically been mentioned that the parties have compromised the

case amicably with the intervention of well-wishers and common

friends outside the court without any pressure or coercion. It is next

jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties,

the informant/opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the

case against the petitioners. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners next

submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the

[2026:JHHC:10051]

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 proceedings including the order dated 01.11.2023 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate, In-charge, East Singhbhum at

Jamshedpur in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S. Case No. 93 of

2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1627 of 2023, be quashed and set

aside.

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

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

quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated

01.11.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, In-charge, East

Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with M.G.M. (Mango) P.S.

Case No. 93 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1627 of 2023.

5. 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

[2026:JHHC:10051]

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

[2026:JHHC:10051]

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 not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental

depravity is involved in this case 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 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.

8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case

where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated