Safikul Shekh @ Safikul Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  (2026:JHHC:9981)



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr.M.P. No. 910 of 2026


           Safikul Shekh @ Safikul Sk., aged about 26 years, son of Islam Shekh,
           resident of Sirasin 159, Ganeshpur, P.O. & P.S.-Barharwa, Dist.-
           Sahibganj
                                                 ....               Petitioner
                                       Versus

           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Smt. Kalpana Paharin, wife of Chhota Bisu Pahariya, resident of
              Village-Kaswa Sirasin, P.O. and P.S. - Barharwa, District Sahibganj
              (Jharkhand)
                                                 ....                Opp. Parties


                                      PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. 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 the prayer to quash the

entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with

Barharwa P.S. Case No.79 of 2025 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2),

118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 3(1) (r) (s) (x) (y) (za) (zc) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the said

(2026:JHHC:9981)

case is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST

Act, Sahibganj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation

of the case is still going on but charge-sheet has not yet been

submitted in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court

towards Interlocutory Application No.4652 of 2026 which is

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

informant/victim/opposite party No.2 of the case and submit that

therein it has been mentioned that petitioner and opposite party

No.2 have entered into a compromise upon the intervention of

well-wishers and close friends and in view of the compromise

between the parties, the informant/opposite party No.2 does not

want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the

parties is having civil flavour and some exaggerations were made

to make the case a serious one. Learned counsel for the petitioner

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 petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is

submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous

petition be allowed.

(2026:JHHC:9981)

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

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

to the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

6. 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 @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. 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 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

(2026:JHHC:9981)

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

(2026:JHHC:9981)

quash the criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)

7. 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 involved in this case rather the same relates to

private dispute between the parties.

8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the

victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and

bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the

petitioner 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.