[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Naresh Kumar Yadav @ Naresh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                            (2026:JHHC:4587)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No.394 of 2026
                                        ------

Naresh Kumar Yadav @ Naresh Yadav, Aged about - 44 years, S/o - Late Bulaki Yadav, R/o Village - Bhuchrobad, P.O.- Khariyodih, P.S.- Hirodih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ramji Yadav, S/o- Late Chhatar Yadav @ Chhotar Mehto, R/o Village- Bhuchrobad, P.O.- Khariyodih, P.S.- Hirodih, District-

            Giridih, Jharkhand                          ...           Opposite Parties
                                             ------
             For the Petitioner         : Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
             For the State              : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2          : Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, 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

proceedings of Hirodih P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506 and

34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending in the

court of learned J.M-1st Class, Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation

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

in this case.

(2026:JHHC:4587)

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

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

towards Interlocutory Application No.2622 of 2026 which is supported

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

informant/opposite party No.2 of this case and submit that therein it

has categorically been mentioned that with the intervention of well-

wishers of both sides, the parties have settled their dispute including

the core dispute related with land and in view of the compromise, the

informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the alleged injuries sustained by the victim

are simple in nature and not on the vital parts of the body and

otherwise also, the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted

that dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute having a

civil flavour and no public policy is involved in this case. 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 entire criminal proceedings of Hirodih P.S. Case

No.55 of 2016 which is now pending in the court of learned J.M-1st

Class, Giridih, be quashed and set aside.

5. 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 and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings of Hirodih

(2026:JHHC:4587)

P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 which is now pending in the court of learned

J.M-1st Class, Giridih.

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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of which reads as under:

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,

(2026:JHHC:4587)

particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the

(2026:JHHC:4587)

High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime." (Emphasis supplied)

had the occasion to consider the scope and ambit of section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis exercise of the said power for

quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences punishable

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

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