Jharkhand High Court
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
Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
2
(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
Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
3
(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
Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
4
(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
Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
5
(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
Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1604 of 2022
be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, 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 is quashed and
set aside qua the petitioners.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.3758 of 2026 is
disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 24th March, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 26/03/2026
Cr.M.P. No.2520 of 2025
6