SHAMSHAD KURESHI @ GUDAN KURAISHI vs THE STATE OF JHAKRHAND

[ 2026:JHHC:31703 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3279 of 2026


1. Shamshad Kureshi @ Gudan Kuraishi age 36 years son
of Subhani Kuraishi, resident of village
Chakaharbhonga, P.O. Sahpur, P.S. Chainpur, District
Palamau.
2. Rinku @ Rinku Quraishi age 42 son of Asik Quraishi,
Kasai Mohalla, Muslim Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj,
District Palamau.
3. Tannu Khan @ Tanvir Khan, age 38 years old, son of
Jamin Khan, Resident of village Humbu, P.O. Chiru,
P.S. Balumath, District Latehar. ...... Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Ahmad Kamal son of Kalam Ansari, Resident of Village
& P.O.- Shahpur, P.S. -Chainpur, District Palamau.
….. Opposite Parties


For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl. PP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Akash Kumar , Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar , Adv.


P R E S E N T
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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report being
Chainpur P.S. case no. 321 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 384, 385, 386, 387, 504, 506 of the IPC
pending in the court of learned SDJM, Palamau at Daltonganj.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation
of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not been
submitted as yet.

4. Drawing attention of the court to I.A. no. 14131 of 2026 which is
supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner no. 1 who is
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3279 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31703 ]
duly authorized to sworn this affidavit on behalf of the other
petitioners as well as the informant – opp. Party no. 2, it is jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that therein it has
categorically been mentioned that the petitioners are innocent and
have falsely been implicated in this case because of the business
rivalry but matter has been compromised between the parties and
the entire dispute has been settled and sorted out, hence, the
opposite party no. 2 is not interested in pursuing the case,
therefore, the chance of conviction of the petitioners 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 Chainpur P.S. case no. 321 of 2023 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 First Information Report
being Chainpur P.S. case no. 321 of 2023, be quashed and set aside
against the petitioners.
5. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding including the First Information Report being
Chainpur P.S. case no. 321 of 2023 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 :-
2 Cr.M.P. No. 3279 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31703 ]
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 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 of the petitioners is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
3 Cr.M.P. No. 3279 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31703 ]
persons to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to them 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 petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,
this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their
entire dispute. 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 petitioners be put to an end.

9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the First
Information Report being Chainpur P.S. case no. 321 of 2023, is
quashed and set aside against the petitioners.

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. 14131 of 2026 is also stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 28 October,2026
Smita / AFR

Uploaded on 02.11.2026
4 Cr.M.P. No. 3279 of 2026