SATYAM PRASAD BHAGAT vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
[2026:JHHC:31019]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2900 of 2026
------
Satyam Prasad Bhagat, aged about 18 years, Son of Vidyasagar
Prasad Bhagat, resident of: H. No. -59, Zone No. 5, Near Situ
Tank, Birsanagar, Hullung, P.O. & P.S. – Birsanagar, Town-
Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831004
… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ayush Yadav, aged about 16 years, represented through his
father and natural guardian Manoj Kumar, R/o H. No. 167,
Zone No. 1B, Hullung, Birsanagar, P.O. and P.S. –
Birsanagar, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand – 831004
…
Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate
Mr. Abhinay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
------
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
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 Bharatiya
1
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the
entire criminal proceedings including the First Information
Report of Telco P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026 registered under
Sections 126(2), 127(2), 118(2), 117(2), 109(1), 140(3), 3(5) of the
st
B.N.S., 2023 of the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1
Class, Jamshedpur.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that 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 the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2- informant jointly draw the attention of
this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.14798 of 2026
which is supported by the separate affidavits of the pairvikar of
the petitioner and the father of the opposite party No.2-
informant as well as the pairvikar of the opposite party No.2 as
the opposite party No.2 is a minor boy of about 16 years old
and submit that therein, it has categorically been mentioned
that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 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 jointly
submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private
dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is also
submitted that some exaggeration has been made in the First
2
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
Information Report to make this case a serious one. 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 prayer as prayed for in this
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.
5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view
of the compromise between the parties, the State has no
objection to the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition.
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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 466
reported in 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:
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
3
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
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
4
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
the guiding factor. On the 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 (which corresponds to
5
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) vis-à-vis exercise of the said
power for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the
offences punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
which corresponds to Section 109 of the B.N.S., 2023.
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 in which no public policy
is involved.
8. Because of the complete settlement between the alleged
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the
petitioner is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal
proceeding would put the petitioner to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal proceeding despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. Hence, this Court
is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire
criminal proceedings including the First Information Report of
Telco P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026 of the court of the learned
st
Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report of Telco P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026 of the
6
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026
[2026:JHHC:31019]
st
court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1 Class, Jamshedpur,
is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
11. In view of disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, I.A.
No. 14798 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 15 of October, 2026
AFR/ Saroj
Uploaded on 16/10/2026
7
Cr. M.P. No.2803 of 2026