[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Akhtar Khan Aged About 46 Years Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:841]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3456 of 2024
------
1. Akhtar Khan Aged about 46 years Son of Saghir Khan, R/o
Village- Karari, P.O. + P.S.- Durgawati, District- Bhabhua, State-
Bihar- 821105
2. Armanullah Khan @ Arman aged about 31 years son of Late
Assadullah Khan R/o Village- Karari, P.O. + P.S.- Durgawati,
District- Bhabhua, State- Bihar- 821105
3. Ansari Begum aged about 56 years wife of Late Assadullah Khan
R/o Village- Karari, P.O. + P.S.- Durgawati, District- Bhabhua,
State- Bihar- 821105
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Shoaib Ahmad Khan S/o Late Jamaluddin Khan, R/o Khan
Cottage, Firdaus Nagar, Manitola, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-
Ranchi- 834002, Jharkhand
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anup Kr. Agrawal, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Nirupama, 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 the
prayer to quash the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie
case for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian
[2026:JHHC:841]
Penal Code and also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint
Case No.4443 of 2018 and the said case is now pending in the court of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 jointly draw attention of this Court to the
supplementary affidavit dated 29.11.2025, filed on behalf of the opposite
party No.2- victim and submit that the parties have entered into a
compromise and consequent upon the same, a joint declaration has been
made and filed before the Family Court, Varanasi. In view of the
compromise, the opposite party No.2- victim is not interested to proceed
with the case. It is next submitted that the genesis of the occurrence is a
marital dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 further submit that the
dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is
involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement
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. It is further
submitted that the same prayer of the co-accused namely Firoza Khanam
has already been allowed by this Court vide the judgment dated 03rd
September, 2024 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3006 of 2019. Hence, it is
submitted that the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie
case for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian
[2026:JHHC:841]
Penal Code and also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint
Case No.4443 of 2018, 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 order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence
punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also
the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.4443 of 2018.
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
[2026:JHHC:841]
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
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 private dispute
between the parties. No public policy is involved in this case.
[2026:JHHC:841]
7. 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 them
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
where the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the
offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
and also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.4443
of 2018, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has found prima facie
case for the offence punishable under Section 323 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and also the entire proceeding in connection with Complaint
Case No.4443 of 2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 13th of January, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 14/01/2026
