ROHIT KUMAR JAIN vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2688 of 2026
------
Rohit Kumar Jain, aged about 38 years, son of Sajjan Kumar
Jain, resident of Main Road Ghatsila, Nuagaon, P.O. & P.S. –
Ghatshila, District – East Singhbhum.
… Petitioner
Versus


1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dr. Ramnaresh Singh Diwakar, aged about 74 years, son of
late Ramsahay Singh, Resident of ward no. 07, near sadar
hospital, Garhwa, P.O. + P.S. + District – Garhwa.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate
Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kr. Singh, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated
29.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-
cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Drug Cosmetics, Ranchi in connection
with C.I.D. Cyber P.S. Case No. 24 of 2026 corresponding to Cyber Case
1 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]

No. 44 of 2026 by which the charges has been framed under Sections
318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, now pending before learned A.J.C.-
II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the case is next fixed to 30.09.2026 and no witness has been examined as
yet in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2-informant jointly draw the attention of this Court
towards Interlocutory Application No.11756 of 2026 which is supported
by the separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioner as well as the
opposite party No.2-informant and submit that therein, it has
categorically been mentioned that with the intervention of well-wishers,
both the petitioner and the informant-opposite party No.2 have entered
into a compromise. It is next jointly submitted that in view of the
compromise between the parties, the opposite party No.2 - informant
does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. It is then
submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely a personal
dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is further
submitted 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
order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
2 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]

Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Drug Cosmetics,
Ranchi in connection with C.I.D. Cyber P.S. Case No. 24 of 2026
corresponding to Cyber Case No. 44 of 2026, now pending before the
learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi, be quashed
and set aside.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of
the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for
quashing the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in connection with C.I.D. Cyber P.S.
Case No. 24 of 2026 corresponding to Cyber Case No. 44 of 2026 which
is now pending before the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber
Crime, 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 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
3 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]

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
4 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]

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 not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental
depravity involved in this case, rather the same relates to 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 order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Drug
Cosmetics, Ranchi in connection with C.I.D. Cyber P.S. Case No. 24 of
2026 corresponding to Cyber Case No. 44 of 2026, now pending before
the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi, be
quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.
5 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:26698 ]


10. Accordingly, the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime,
Drug Cosmetics, Ranchi in connection with C.I.D. Cyber P.S. Case No.
24 of 2026 corresponding to Cyber Case No. 44 of 2026, now pending
before the learned A.J.C.-II-cum-Special Judge, Cyber Crime, Ranchi, is
quashed and set aside against the petitioner named above.

11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

12. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition, I.A. No. 11756 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
rd
Dated the 03 of September, 2026
AFR/ Saroj

Uploaded on 05/09/2026

6 Cr. M.P. No.2688 of 2026