Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Choudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 August, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2392 of 2026
------
Ajit Choudhary, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Rajendra Choudhary,
R/o Village Shashtri Chowk, Dubey Mohalla, P.O.-Lohardaga, P.S.-
Lohardaga, Dist.-Lohardaga.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rashmi Kujur, W/o Sukhdev Oraon, resident of Village Chalho,
P.O.-Mahuary, P.S.-Kairo, District-Lohardaga.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Agnivesh, 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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash the first information report as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No.11 of 2023
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120 B
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
1 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )
Atrocities Act) and the said case is now pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Lohardaga.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of
the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards
Interlocutory Application No.10544 of 2026 which is supported by the
separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the
Pairvikar of the petitioner wherein it has categorically been mentioned
that the opposite party no.2 out of her own free will without any
compulsion entered into a compromise with the petitioner. 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 petitioner
submits 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 for the petitioner 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 petitioner is remote and
bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the first information report as well as
the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S.
Case No.11 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
406, 419, 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and the said case is now pending
2 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge,
Lohardaga, be quashed and set aside.
5. 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 first information report as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No.11 of 2023
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120 B
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act) and the said case is now pending before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Lohardaga.
6. 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)3 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )“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
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
4 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )
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)”
7. 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 a petty private
dispute between the parties.
8. Because of the complete settlement between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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.
9. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case
where the first information report as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case No.11 of 2023
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120 B
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities Act), be quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the first information report as well as the entire
criminal proceeding in connection with Lohardaga SC/ST P.S. Case
No.11 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406,
419, 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) against the petitioner.
5 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:23280 )
11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.10544 of 2026
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 05th of August, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj
Uploaded on 06/08/2026
6 Cr. M.P. No.2392 of 2026
