Jharkhand High Court
Geeta Devi @ Gita Devi @ Gita Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:22274]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1127 of 2024
Geeta Devi @ Gita Devi @ Gita Singh, aged about 40
years, wife of Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, resident of
Brij Bihari Bagan, Slag Road, Bhalubasa, P.O.- Agrico,
P.S.- Sitaramdera, Town- Jamshedpur, Dist.- East
Singhbhum ...... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Jharkhand
2. Ishwari Devi, wife of Late Badrinath, resident of 21,
Bhima Road, Sidhgora, P.O.- Agrico, Town-
Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum
….. Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. J.N.Upadhyay, Adv.
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 CrPC with the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
06.06.2011 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. case no. 15 of 2010
corresponding to G.R. no. 325 of 2010 arising out of C/1 Case no.
287 of 2010 involving the offences punishable under Sections 420,
406, 506, 34 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is
pending for appearance and as yet, charge has not even been
framed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 jointly draw attention of the court to the I.A.
No. 10087 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of
the pairvikar of the petitioner, the petitioner as well as the
1 Cr.M.P. No. 1127 of 2024
[2026:JHHC:22274]
informant – opp. Party no. 2 wherein it has categorically been
stated that with the intervention of well-wishers and friends, the
entire dispute has been settled and sorted out, hence, the opposite
party no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the case and the chance
of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further
submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute
and no public policy is involved in the case hence, continuation of
the criminal proceeding in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. case
no. 15 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. no. 325 of 2010 arising out of
C/1 Case no. 287 of 2010 will amount to abuse of the process of
law and no purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into
between the parties, hence, it is jointly submitted that the entire
criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
06.06.2011 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. case no. 15 of 2010
corresponding to G.R. no. 325 of 2010 arising out of C/1 Case no.
287 of 2010, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.
5. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
06.06.2011 in connection with Sitaramdera P.S. case no. 15 of 2010
corresponding to G.R. no. 325 of 2010 arising out of C/1 Case no.
287 of 2010 in view of the compromise between the parties.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Others v. 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)2 Cr.M.P. No. 1127 of 2024
[2026:JHHC:22274]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 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)
7. 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 person to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
3 Cr.M.P. No. 1127 of 2024
[2026:JHHC:22274]
to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
8. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,
this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their
entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it
would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal
proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of law
and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire
criminal proceeding against the petitioner be put to an end.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 06.06.2011 in connection with
Sitaramdera P.S. case no. 15 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. no. 325
of 2010 arising out of C/1 Case no. 287 of 2010, is quashed and set
aside against the petitioner.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and in
view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition, the
I.A. No. 10087 of 2026 is also disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 27th July, 2026
Smita /AFR
Uploaded on 29.07.2026
4 Cr.M.P. No. 1127 of 2024
