[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Mukhlesur Rahman @ Muklesur Rahman vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 April, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                         ( 2026:JHHC:10191 )



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No.923 of 2026
                                      ------

1. Mukhlesur Rahman @ Muklesur Rahman, aged about 33 years, son of Saukat Shekh;

2. Mostak Shekh @ Mustakim Shekh @ Mostak Sk., aged about 32 years, son of Guda Shekh @ Mojamel Shekh,

3. Raihan Shekh @ Rehan Shekh, aged about 33 years, son of Safaul Shekh,

4. Babar Ali @ Babar Shekh, aged about 28 years, son of Tajamul Shekh,

5. Sahin Shekh @ Shahin Shekh, aged about 27 years, son of Tohab Shekh, All residents of Village Sirasin, Ganeshpur, P.O. and P.S.- Barharwa, District-Sahibganj.

                                                          ...          Petitioners
                                              Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Smt. Kalpana Paharin, wife of Chhota Bisu Pahariya, resident of Kaswa Sirasin, P.O. and P.S. - Barharwa, District Sahibganj ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : 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

( 2026:JHHC:10191 )

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 Bhartiya 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the investigation of

the case is still going on and 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.4628 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. It is further submitted the similar case of the

co-accused namely Fajlul Haque @ Fajal Sheikh has already been quashed

( 2026:JHHC:10191 )

and set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 17th of March, 2026

passed in Cr.M.P. No.676 of 2026 reported in 2026:JHHC:7330. It is next

submitted 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 including the F.I.R. in connection with Barharwa P.S.

Case No.79 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Special

Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, be quashed and set aside.

5. 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 setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including the

F.I.R. in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No.79 of 2025 which is now

pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.

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 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 of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to

( 2026:JHHC:10191 )

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 put the accused

( 2026:JHHC:10191 )

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 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 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

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