NAVIN KUMAR vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3340 of 2026
------
Navin Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Narayan Prasad, resident
of Tikratoli, Sadbhawna Maidan, Bajra Karanj, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar,
P.O.-Hehal, District-Ranchi.
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Vikash Kumar, aged about 24 years, son of Vinod Sahu, resident of
Shivshakti Nagar, Kishoreganj, P.O.-G.P.O. Ranchi, P.S.-Sukhdeo
Nagar, District-Ranchi.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sudeep Ranjan, Advocate
------
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 the BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer to quash the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.238 of 2026
registered for the offences punishable under 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2),
352, 118(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the said case is now pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXI, Ranchi.
1
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )



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 in
this case.
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.15733 of 2026 which is supported by the
affidavit of the opposite party No.2/informant and the petitioner
wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into
between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. 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, hence, the informant/opposite
party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is a petty
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 Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.238 of 2026 registered for
the offence punishable under 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352, 118(2) &
3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the said case is now pending before the learned
Judicial Magistrate-XXXI, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.
2
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )



5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of
the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection
for quashing the First Information Report as well as the entire criminal
proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.238 of 2026
registered for the offence punishable under 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2),
352, 118(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the said case is now pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXI, Ranchi.

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 (2017) 9 SCC 641,
reported in 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)
“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
3
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )


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)”

4
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )




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 Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.238 of 2026
registered for the offence punishable under 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2),
352, 118(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the said case is now pending
before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXI, Ranchi, as prayed for by the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, the First Information Report as well as the entire
criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.238
of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under 115(2), 126(2), 303(2),
351(2), 352, 118(2) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and the said case is now
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-XXXI, Ranchi is quashed
and set aside against the petitioner.
11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
5
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026








( 2026:JHHC:31911 )



12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.15733 of 2026
stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 30 of October, 2026
AFR/ Abhiraj

Uploaded on 31/10/2026

6
Cr. M.P. No.3340 of 2026