Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Abhilash @ Pappu Singh @ Kakku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
[2026:JHHC:12247]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1109 of 2026
------
Kumar Abhilash @ Pappu Singh @ Kakku, aged about 56 years,
Son of Jay Prakash Choudhary, Resident of 32, Basant Kumar
De Lane, Karanibag, P.O.- Ashram, P.S.- Kunda, Dist.-
Deoghar.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Surendra Prasad Gupta, aged about 42 Years, S/o
Sheopujan Sah, R/o Ward-3, Kochas, P.O. & P.S.- Kochas,
Dist.- Rohtas (Bihar)
… Opposite Parties
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate
Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, 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 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the
entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town
P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 737 of
1 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]
2017 of the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Deoghar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is next
fixed for appearance of the accused persons on 25.08.2026 and
charge has not yet been framed in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2- informant jointly draw the attention of
this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.2885 of 2026
which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner
as well as the opposite party No.2- informant and submit that
therein, it has categorically been mentioned that with the
intervention of the well-wishers and common friends, both the
parties have settled their dispute outside the court. It is next
submitted that due to confusion regarding identity of the
petitioner, the present case has been lodged against the
petitioner. In view of the compromise between the parties, the
opposite party No.2- informant does not want to proceed
against the petitioner, hence, otherwise also the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not
made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-
informant further jointly submit that the dispute between the
parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in
this case. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise
2 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]
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 entire criminal
proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated
13.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town P.S. Case no. 283 of
2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 737 of 2017, 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 entire criminal proceeding including
the order taking cognizance dated 13.08.2021 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with
Deoghar Town P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017 corresponding to G.R.
Case No. 737 of 2017.
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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29
of which reads as under:
“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its3 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is
to be distinguished from the power which lies in the
Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter
between themselves. However, this power is to be
exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and
on that basis petition for quashing the criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases
would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form
an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and
have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the
offences alleged to have been committed under special
statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore
are to be generally treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. However, the High
Court would not rest its decision merely because there is
a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
4 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]
framed under this provision. It would be open to the
High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in
respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be
the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances
of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would
be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea
compounding the offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be
swayed by the fact that the settlement between the
parties is going to result in harmony between them
which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power
under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged
commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that
at this stage the investigation is still on and even the
charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases
where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High
Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the
stage of argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of
the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come
to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section
307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the
High Court, mere compromise between the parties would
not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal
of the offender who has already been convicted by the
5 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]
trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied)
had the occasion to consider the scope and ambit of section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds to
Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, vis-Ã -vis exercise of the said
power for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the
offences punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 private dispute between the parties in which no public policy
is involved and some exaggerations were made in the First
Information Report to make the case a serious one.
8. Because of the complete settlement between the alleged
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the
petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal
proceeding would put the petitioner to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal proceeding 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order taking
cognizance dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town
6 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:12247]
P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 737 of
2017, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner named
above.
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order
taking cognizance dated 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar Town
P.S. Case no. 283 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 737 of
2017, is quashed and set aside against the petitioner named
above.
11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
12. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A.
No. 2885 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 27th of April, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 28/04/2026
7 Cr. M.P. No.1109 of 2026