ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

(2026:JHHC:31539)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.703 of 2024
------
Ashok Kumar Gupta @ Ashok Gupta, aged about 59 years, S/O-
Late Babulal Gupta, R/o H. 12, Ashat Bunglows, opp.
Madhuram Party plot, P.O.- Zadeshwar Chokdi, P.S.- Bharuch,
District- Zadeshwar, Gujrat. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajendra Prasad Prajapati, S/o Late Shiv Narayan Prajapati, R/o-
Bhithara, SIGSIGI, P.O. & P.S.- Rehla, Dist- Palamau Jharkhand.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P.2 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Diwakar Jha, 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 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure with the prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceedings including the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned
CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.63 of
2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No.2389 of 2023 whereby and
whereunder the cognizance has been taken of the offences punishable
under Sections 284, 285, 287, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is
now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at
Daltonganj.
1 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that no witness
has been examined in this case as yet.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards
Interlocutory Application No.15189 of 2026 which is supported by the
separate affidavits of the petitioner and the informant/opposite party
No.2 and submit that therein it has been mentioned that during the
pendency of the case, the informant/opposite party No.2 as well as the
petitioner have entered into a compromise hence the informant does not
want to continue with the prosecution of the petitioner. It is next jointly
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the opposite party No.2 that the genesis of the occurrence is a petty
dispute between the parties regarding sprinkling of Hydrochloric Acid
and it is apparent that the alleged acid was a dilute one without having
the property of causing any damage but to make the case as serious one,
some exaggerations have been made in the First Information Report.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
no intention to kill the victim, hence, otherwise also the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made
against the petitioner. It is next jointly submitted that the dispute
between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is
involved in this case. Learned senior 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
2 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)
of law as in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the
petitioner is remote and bleak.
5. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings
including the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM,
Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.63 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No.2389 of 2023 whereby and whereunder
the cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections
284, 285, 287, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, be
quashed and set aside against the petitioner.
6. 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 and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings including the
order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Palamau at
Daltonganj in connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.63 of 2023
corresponding to G.R. Case No.2389 of 2023.
7. 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 its 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:
3 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)
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 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
4 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)
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 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 vis-à-vis exercise of the said power for
quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offence punishable
under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case
are not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental
5 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)
depravity involved in this case, rather the same relates to private dispute
between the parties.
9. Because of the complete settlement between the petitioner 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.
10. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case
where the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated
15.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in
connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.63 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.2389 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been
taken for the offences punishable under Sections 284, 285, 287, 307 & 34
of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, as prayed for by the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside against the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order
dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in
connection with Rehla P.S. Case No.63 of 2023 corresponding to G.R.
Case No.2389 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been
taken for the offences punishable under Sections 284, 285, 287, 307 & 34
of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending before the learned Chief
6 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024

(2026:JHHC:31539)
Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, is quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.15189 of 2026
stands disposed of accordingly.

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

Uploaded on 04/11 /2026

7 Cr. M.P. No.703 of 2024