NISAR ANSARI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
(2026:JHHC:26425)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2686 of 2026
1. Nisar Ansari, aged about 26 years, son of Alauddin Mian
2. Shamim Ansari @ Samim Ansari, aged about 29 years, son of
Niyamat Mian
Both are resident of Village-Parsani, Kanki, Panchayat,
Masanjor, P.O.-Kanki, P.S.-Palojori, Dist.-Deoghar
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Parmeshwar Purty, son of Late Lakho Purty, resident of
Kalajudi, P.O.-Narsanda, P.S.-Chaibasa Muffasil, District-
Chaibasa
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, 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 FIR being Chaibasa
Mufassil P.S. Case No.185 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(2),
61, 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under
Section 66 (C) (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000
1
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26425)
and the said case is now pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the
attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application
No.12168 of 2026 which is supported by the separate
affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the
petitioners, wherein it is mentioned that a compromise
has been entered into between the petitioners and the
opposite party No.2. It is next jointly submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 that good sense has prevailed
between the parties after intervention of the friends as
well as the well-wishers. It is then submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the
parties has been settled and the informant/opposite party
no.2 has received the entire amount from the petitioners
by the way of demand draft and in view of the
compromise, the opposite party no.2/informant does not
intend to proceed with the case. It is next submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the
parties is basically a civil dispute regarding the payment
of money. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
2
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26425)
for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 that in view of the compromise between the
parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will
amount to abuse of process of law and 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.
4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no
serious objection to the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition, in view of the compromise
between the parties.
5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and
after going through the materials 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 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 :
3
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26425)
(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,
4
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26425)
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)
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences
involved in this case are neither heinous offence nor is
there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in
this case. The institution of the criminal case relates to a
petty private dispute 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.
5
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:26425)
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case where the entire
criminal proceeding including the FIR being Chaibasa
Mufassil P.S. Case No.185 of 2025, as prayed for by the
petitioners, be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding
including the FIR being Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case
No.185 of 2025, as prayed for by the petitioners, is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is
allowed.
10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no.12168
of 2026 is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
nd
Dated the 2 September, 2026
AFR/Gunjan/-
Uploaded on 03/09/2026
6
Cr.M.P. No.2686 of 2026