[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mojibur Rahman @ Mojibur Shekh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                               (2026:JHHC:10534)



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     Cr. M. P. No. 911 of 2026

            1. Mojibur Rahman @ Mojibur Shekh, aged about 34 years, son of
                  Manjur Alam @ Manjur Shekh;
            2. Abdul Raf @ Bablu, aged about 43 years, son of Muslim Shekh.
                  (Both residents of Kaswa Sirasin, Ganeshpur, PO & PS -
                  Barharwa, District - Sahibganj.                  ... ... ...Petitioners
                                               Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand.
            2. Smt. Kalpana Paharini, wife of Chhota Bisu Pahariya, resident of
                  Kaswa Sirasin, PO & PS - Barharwa, District- Sahibganj.
                                                                      ... ... ...Opp. Parties
                                                ------

For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, 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 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 case is now pending in the court of

learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.

(2026:JHHC:10534)

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

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

Interlocutory Application No. 4379 of 2026 which is supported by the

separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the informant/victim

/opposite party No.2 of the case and submit that therein it has been

mentioned that petitioners 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 petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners

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 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 prayer as made in this criminal

miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Spl 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.

(2026:JHHC:10534)

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 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

(2026:JHHC:10534)

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)

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 petitioners are remote and

bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners

to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be

(2026:JHHC:10534)

caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and

complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

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