Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                     (2026:JHHC:8300)



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr.M.P. No. 2520 of 2025


1. Pradeep Bagaria @ Pradeep Kumar Bagaria @ Pradeep Bagedia,
  aged about 64 years, son of late Ramchandra Bagaria, resident of
  Station Road, P.O. & P.S.-Pachamba, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
2. Vaarun Bagaria @ Barun Bagaria @ Barun Bagedia, aged about 35
  years, son of Pradeep Bagaria, resident of Station Road, P.O. & P.S.-
  Pachamba, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
3. Krishna Pandey @ Nunu Pandey, aged about 51 years, son of late
  Parmanand Pandey, resident of Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.-Pachamba,
  Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
4. Shambhu Sharma @ Shambhu Nath Sharma, aged about 59 years,
  son of late Ramchandra Sharma, resident of Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.-
  Pachamba, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
5. Neeraj Pandey @ Neeraj Kumar Pandey, aged about 31 years, son of
  Krishna Pandey, resident of Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.-Pachamba,
  Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
6. Niketan Pandey @ Niketan Kumar Pandey, aged about 28 years,
  son of Krishna Pandey, resident of Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.-
  Pachamba, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
7. Mukesh Sao @ Mukesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 49 years, son of
  Basudeo Sao @ Basudeo Sahu, resident of Pachamba, P.O. & P.S.-
  Pachamba, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
8. Navin Chaurasia @ Navin Anand @ Naveen Chaurasiya, aged
  about 55 years, son of late Suresh Chaurasia @ Suresh Prasad,
  resident of Village-Dhariyadih, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih
  (Jharkhand)
9. Vikash Chaurasia @ Vikash Anand @ Vikas Chaurasiya, aged about
  48 years, son of late Suresh Chaurasia @ Suresh Prasad, resident of
  Village-Dhariyadih, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
10. Dharmendra Sharma @ Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 51
  years, son of late Ashok Sharma @ Ashok Kumar Sharma, resident
  of Bulaki Road, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
                                                     Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
                              1
                                                                  (2026:JHHC:8300)



           11. Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjay Kumar Sharma, son of late Ashok Sharma
              @ Ashok Kumar Sharma, aged about 51 years, resident of Bulaki
              Road, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih (Jharkhand)
           12. Sardar Gunwant Singh Saluja @ Gunwant Singh Mongia, aged
              about 63 years, son of late Daljeet Singh, resident of Saluja House,
              Netajee Chowk, Bhandaridih, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih
              (Jharkhand)
                                                ....                 Petitioners
                                       Versus

           1. The State of Jharkhand
           2. Suresh Prasad Gupta @ Loha Singh, aged about 70 years, son of late
              Hari Prasad Sahu, resident of Sakin, P.O. & P.S.-Pachamba, Dist.-
              Giridih (Jharkhand)
                                                ....               Opp. Parties


                                      PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with

the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the

petitioners including the order taking cognizance dated 04.02.2023

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

connection with Complaint Case No.1604 of 2022, whereby and

where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has

(2026:JHHC:8300)

taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147,

149, 323, 341, 406, 427, 451, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

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

the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to

the Interlocutory Application No.3758 of 2026 which is supported

by separate affidavits of the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 and the

opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has categorically been

mentioned that the petitioners and the complainant have entered

into a compromise with the intervention of well-wishers and

friends and both the parties have resolved their dispute. It is next

jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the

complainant does not want to pursue the case. It is further jointly

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is

involved in this case and as compromise has been entered into

between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is

remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made

in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4. Learned P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer

as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in view of the

compromise between the parties.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

(2026:JHHC:8300)

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai

Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State

of Gujarat and 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, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the

(2026:JHHC:8300)

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 neither heinous offence nor is there any serious offence of

mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the

criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the

(2026:JHHC:8300)

parties which has amicably been settled between the parties. In

view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation

of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered

view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding

against the petitioners including the order taking cognizance

dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st