Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Lal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:12910)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3450 of 2024
Manoj Lal, aged about 36 years, s/o late Hriday Lal, r/o House No.
1619 Aambagan Mihijam, Near Church Road, P.O. & P.S.-Mihijam,
Dist.-Jamtara
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Binod Kumar Rajak, s/o late Baban Kumar Rajak, r/o Kangoi
Samudayik Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Mihijam, Dist.-Jamtara
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Avilash Kumar, 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 a
prayer to quash the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner involving the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 468/34 of Indian Penal Code in connection
with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024, pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamtara.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to
the Interlocutory Application No.3887 of 2025 which is supported
by separate affidavits of the brother-in-law being pairvikar of the
Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2024
1
(2025:JHHC:12910)petitioner and the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that
therein it has been mentioned that the parties have amicably
settled the differences and dispute and the joint agreement has
been entered into by the parties dated 30.01.2025. It is next jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the informant has
already been paid Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total settlement amount
of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further jointly submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute
and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the
compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction of the
petitioner is remote and bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal
proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is
submitted that the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner in connection with Mihijam P.S.
Case No. 30 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer for quashing the FIR as well as the entire criminal
proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with
Mihijam P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024, 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.3450 of 2024
2
(2025:JHHC:12910)that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai
Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has 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
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
Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2024
3
(2025:JHHC:12910)
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 there is any serious offence of
mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the
criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the
parties which has been amicably settled between the parties. In
view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation
of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioner.
Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2024
4
(2025:JHHC:12910)
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case where the FIR as well as the entire
criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection
with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding
initiated against the petitioner in connection with Mihijam P.S.
Case No. 30 of 2024 is quashed and set aside.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.3887 of 2025 is
disposed of.
11. In view of the disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition
interlocutory application no. 378 of 2025 is disposed of being
infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30th April, 2025
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
Cr.M.P. No.3450 of 2024
5