[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Vaarun Bagaria @ Varun Bagaria vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                             (2026:JHHC:8072)




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2025
                            ------

1. Vaarun Bagaria @ Varun Bagaria, Aged about 35 years, S/o Pradeep Kumar Bagaria, R/o 54/10 5C3, D.C. Dey Road, Tangra, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District- Kolkata, West Bengal-700015

2. Pradeep Kumar Bagaria, Aged about 64 years, S/o Late Ram Chandra Bagaria, R/o 54/10, 5C3, D.C. Dey Road, Tangra, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District- Kolkata, West Bengal-700015

3. Saroj Kumar Bagaria, Aged about 71 years, S/o Late Ram Chandra Bagaria, R/o 54/10, 5C3, D.C. Dey Road, Tangra, P.O. & P.S. Kolkata, District- Kolkata, West Bengal-700015

4. Raj Kumar Bagaria, Aged about 67 years, S/o Late Ram Chandra Bagaria, R/o C-101, Arvind Expansia, Mahadevapura Main Road, Oppo. Hindustan Petrol Bunk, Puttappa Industrial Layout, Mahadevapura, P.O. & P.S.- Bengaluru, District- Bengaluru, Karnataka-560048

5. Shambhu Nath Sharma, Aged about 59 years, S/o Late Ram Chandra Sharma, R/o Marwari Mahalla, P.O. & P.S.- Pachamba, District- Giridih, Jharkhand-815301 ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Chandan Kumar Gupta, aged about 41 years, S/o Suresh Prasad Gupta, R/o Village Near Pachamba Post Office, High School Road, P.O. & P.S. Pachamba, District- Giridih, Jharkhand-815301 ... Opposite Parties

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mrs. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate

------

                        PRESENT
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY



                                                                             (2026:JHHC:8072)




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 order taking

cognizance dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.841 of 2022

corresponding to T.R. No.1100 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the

learned Magistrate has found prima facie case for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code

having been committed by the the petitioners and the said case is now

pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih.

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

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

Court towards Interlocutory Application No.3760 of 2026 which is

supported by the separate affidavits of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 as

well as the complainant/opposite party No.2 of this case and submit

that therein it has categorically been mentioned that with the

intervention of well-wishers and friends, they have decided to resolve

their dispute on certain terms and conditions and a memorandum of

understanding has been prepared which has been annexed with the

instant Interlocutory Application. It is next jointly submitted that in

view of the compromise between the parties, complainant/opposite

party No.2 of this case does not want to proceed with the case. Learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties

is basically a private dispute having a civil flavour and no public policy

(2026:JHHC:8072)

is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners is

remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the order taking

cognizance dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-

1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.841 of 2022

corresponding to T.R. No.1100 of 2022 which is now pending in the

court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih, 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 and setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 10.02.2023

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

connection with Complaint Case No.841 of 2022 corresponding to T.R.

No.1100 of 2022 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial

Magistrate-1st Class, Giridih.

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

(2026:JHHC:8072)

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

(2026:JHHC:8072)

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.

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 taking cognizance dated 10.02.2023 passed by the