[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Poonam Aheriya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.466 of 2024
------
1. Poonam Aheriya, D/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Aheriya, aged about 34
years, R/o Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Priyadarshani Vihar
Part-I, Model Town-II, P.O. + P.S.-Model Town, District-East New
Delhi-110009.
2. Ramswroop Aheria, S/o Late Diwan Singh Aheriya, aged about
62 years, R/o Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Priyadarshani Vihar
Part-I, Model Town-II, P.O. + P.S.-Model Town, District-East New
Delhi-110009.
3. Kiran Lata Aheriya, W/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Aheriya, D/o Sh.
Mohan Thekardar, aged about 58 years, bearing, R/o Near Nanak
Piao Gurudwara, Priyadarshani Vihar Part-I, Model Town-II, P.O.
+ P.S.-Model Town, District-East New Delhi-110009.
4. Amardeep Aheriya, S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Aheriya, aged about
29 years, R/o Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Priyadarshani Vihar
Part-I, Model Town-II, P.O. + P.S.-Model Town, District-East New
Delhi-110009.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Uttam Kumar Singh, S/o Sh. Indradeo Singh, residence of Near
Kali Mandir, Chanakya Nagar, Railway Colony, Chutia, P.O. + P.S.-
Chutia, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Aprajita Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikas Pandey, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising
out of Chutia P.S. Case No.178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case
No.1341 of 2020 including the order of cognizance dated 16.06.2020
passed by the learned JMFC-VIII- Ranchi whereby and where under the
learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452, 506, 120 B & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and the said case is now pending before the learned JMFC-
VIII, Ranchi.
3. 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.16129 of 2025 which is supported by the
separate affidavit of the opposite party No.2/informant and the
petitioner no.1 wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has
been entered into between the petitioners and the opposite party No.2. It
is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a
matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party
no.2 and both of them have entered into a mediation settlement
agreement dated 30.09.2019 in the Mediation Centre, Civil Court, Ranchi,
and because of the same, the opposite party no.2 does not want to
proceed with this case. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has
prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends as well as
the well-wishers and the dispute between the parties has been settled.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit 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
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
for the petitioners next submit 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 arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No.178
of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1341 of 2020 including the order
of cognizance dated 16.06.2020 passed by the learned JMFC-VIII- Ranchi
whereby and where under the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi has taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452, 506,
120 B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside.
4. 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 proceeding arising out of Chutia P.S. Case
No.178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1341 of 2020 including the
order of cognizance dated 16.06.2020 passed by the learned JMFC-VIII-
Ranchi whereby and where under the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi has
taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452,
506, 120 B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before
the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi.
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
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
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,
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
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
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 serious offence of mental depravity
involved in this case rather the same relates to a petty private dispute
between the parties.
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 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
where the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chutia P.S. Case
No.178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1341 of 2020 including the
( 2026:JHHC:7759 )
order of cognizance dated 16.06.2020 passed by the learned JMFC-VIII-
Ranchi whereby and where under the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi has
taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452,
506, 120 B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now
pending before the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi, as prayed for by the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Chutia
P.S. Case No.178 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No.1341 of 2020
including the order of cognizance dated 16.06.2020 passed by the learned
JMFC-VIII- Ranchi whereby and where under the learned JMFC-VIII,
Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections
341, 323, 452, 506, 120 B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case
is now pending before the learned JMFC-VIII, Ranchi is quashed and set
aside against the petitioners.
10. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
11. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.16129 of 2025
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 19th of March, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 23/03/2026
