[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Aman Srivastava @ Aman Shrivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                              ( 2026:JHHC:2568 )



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.199 of 2026
                                        ------

Aman Srivastava @ Aman Shrivastava, aged about 34 years, son of Late Sushil Srivastava, Resident of Village-Kubba, P.O.-Kubba, P.S.- Hunterganj, District-Chatra/Jharkhand.

                                                         ...             Petitioner
                                            Versus
            1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ramjeet Ram, aged about 49 years, son of Late Brija Ram, Resident of River Side, Chief House, Budh Bazar, Bhurkunda, P.O.- Bhurkunda, P.S.-Patratu (Bhurkunda), District-Ramgarh/Jharkhand.

                                                       ...            Opposite Parties
                                            ------
             For the Petitioner        : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate
                                         Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
             For the O.P. No.2         : Ms. Pragati Prasad, 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with a

prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu

Bhurkunda P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of

2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384,

385, 387 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending

before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramgarh.

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

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

( 2026:JHHC:2568 )

Interlocutory Application No.1323 of 2026 which is supported by the

separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the

petitioner wherein it has categorically been mentioned that a

compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the

opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that the present case arose out

of a personal dispute between the parties and both the parties have

amicably arrived at a settlement on their free-will and decided not to

proceed with the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that this compromise

is voluntary and without any pressure and with free will and wish.

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

and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy. 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 proceeding in connection with Patratu

Bhurkunda P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of

2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384,

385, 387 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside.

4. 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

the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu Bhurkunda P.S.

Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2024 registered

( 2026:JHHC:2568 )

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 385, 387 & 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

5. 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 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,

( 2026:JHHC:2568 )

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 quash the criminal proceeding." (Emphasis supplied)"

6. 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 a private

dispute between the parties.

( 2026:JHHC:2568 )

7. 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.

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