[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ranjan Yadav @ Ranjan Rai @ Ranjay Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                  [2026:JHHC:5018]




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.426 of 2026
                                         ------

Ranjan Yadav @ Ranjan Rai @ Ranjay Ray, aged about 41 years, Son of Shri Khakhanu Ray, resident of Behind T.V.S. School, New Colony, Bara Khatal, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi - 834004, Jharkhand.

                                                       ...            Petitioner
                                           Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Prabha Devi, aged about 61 years, Wife of Sri Bhagwan Rai, resident of New Colony, Bara Kathal, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi - 834004, Jharkhand at present residing at East Ramkrishna Nagar, N.T.P.C. Colony, New Jaganpura, P.O. Jaganpur, P.S. Ramkrishna Nagar, District- Patna -

            800027, Bihar
                                                      ...           Opposite Parties
                                            ------
             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
             For the State             : Mrs. Shweta Singh, Addl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Banka, 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 including the order taking cognizance dated 08.06.2022

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class - XXVII, Ranchi in

[2026:JHHC:5018]

connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 262 of 2018 corresponding

to G.R. Case No. 3245 of 2018 involving the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 341, 448, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next

fixed for appearance of the accused persons and charge has not yet been

framed in this case.

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

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

towards Interlocutory Application No.2364 of 2026 which is supported

by the separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as the opposite party

No.2/informant and submit that therein, it has categorically been

mentioned that during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous

Petition due to intervention of common friends, family members and

well-wishers, the matter has been compromised between the parties. 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 petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute 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 including the order taking cognizance

dated 08.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class -

[2026:JHHC:5018]

XXVII, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 262 of

2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3245 of 2018, 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 the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking

cognizance dated 08.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class - XXVII, Ranchi in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.

262 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3245 of 2018.

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 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

[2026:JHHC:5018]

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 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

[2026:JHHC:5018]

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 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.

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

where the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking