KULESHWAR KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

( 2026:JHHC:31448 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3291 of 2026


1. Kuleshwar Kumar, aged about 35 Years, S/o Shiv Narayan Sahu
@ Shibu Sahu, R/o Village –Surhu, P.O. & P.S. –Kamdara,
District –Gumla (Jharkhand).

2. Sandip Kumar Sahu, aged about 35 years, S/o Firu Sahu, R/o
Village –Gangra, P.O. & P.S. –Basia, District –Gumla (Jharkhand)
3. Dilip Sahu, aged about 37 years, S/o Firu Sahu, R/o Village –
Gangra, P.O. & P.S. –Basia, District –Gumla (Jharkhand).

.... Petitioners
Versus


1. State of Jharkhand;

2. Basanti Devi, W/o Late Devidayal Sahu, R/o Village –Kumhari,
P.O. & P.S. –Basia, District –Gumla (Jharkhand).

…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arun 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 the B.N.S.S.,
2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding
including the F.I.R. of Basia P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024, registered
for the offences punishable under Section 442, 447, 452, 383, 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
Cr.M.P. No.3291 of 2026
1

( 2026:JHHC:31448 )


3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners and the learned counsel
for the informant-opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention
of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.15259 of 2026
which is supported by separate affidavits of the three
petitioners as well as the informant-opposite party no.2 submits
that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that the present
case is arising out of a civil dispute between the parties, hence
during the pendency both the parties have compromised the
case outside the court with the help of well-wishers and
intervention of common friends. It is then submitted that in
view of the compromise, the informant-opposite party no.2
does not want to proceed against the petitioners in this case. It
is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is
basically a civil dispute and no public policy is involved in this
case and as compromise has been entered into between the
parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and
bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this
criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to
the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in
view of the compromise between the parties.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention
Cr.M.P. No.3291 of 2026
2

( 2026:JHHC:31448 )

here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Others vs. 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:-
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
Cr.M.P. No.3291 of 2026
3

( 2026:JHHC:31448 )

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. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this
case are neither heinous offences nor is there any serious
offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The
institution of the criminal case is the result of some
misunderstanding between the parties which has amicably been
settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement
between the parties; the continuation of this criminal
proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners.
Cr.M.P. No.3291 of 2026
4

( 2026:JHHC:31448 )


8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding
including the F.I.R. of Basia P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024, registered
for the offences punishable under Section 442, 447, 452, 383, 34
of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the
petitioners.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
F.I.R. of Basia P.S. Case No. 50 of 2024, registered for the
offences punishable under Section 442, 447, 452, 383, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

11. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application No.15259 of 2026
is disposed of.

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

Uploaded on 29/10/2026
Cr.M.P. No.3291 of 2026
5