VINAY PRATAP SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2879 of 2025
------
1. Vinay Pratap Singh, aged about 44 years, Son of Sri Lal Bahadur
Singh, resident of Flat No. 205, Shanti Vimla Bihar, Rohit Nagar,
Naria, P.O.- Lanka, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).
2. Lal Bahadur Singh, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Gaya Singh,
resident of Flat No. 205, Shanti Vimla Bihar, Rohit Nagar, Naria,
P.O.- Lanka, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).
3. Asha Singh, aged about 74 years, wife of Sri Lal Bahadur Singh,
resident of Flat No. 205, Shanti Vimla Bihar, Rohit Nagar, Naria,
P.O.- Lanka, P.S. Lanka, District- Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh).
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shweta Singh, wife of Sri Vinay Pratap Singh, daughter of Naresh
Narayan Singh, presently residing at 8B, Rashmirathi Apartment,
Dinkar, Kanke Road, Gonda, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-
…
Ranchi. Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate.
For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Chiranjeev Bhadoria, Advocate.
Mr. Rishu Ranjan, 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 entire
criminal proceeding including the order dated 14.01.2020 passed
st
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranchi in connection
with Gonda P.S. Case No. 122 of 2019 (G.R. No. 165 of 2020)
whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken by the
1 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


learned Judicial Magistrate under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506,
498A/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the next date fixed
on 04.01.2027 for evidence and so far none of the witnesses has
been examined by the prosecution.

4. 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.15464 of 2026 which is
supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners nos.1, 2 and
3 as well as the opposite party no.2 of this case and submit that
therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute consequent upon a mediation on
some terms and conditions and in view of the same, opposite party
no.2 does not want to proceed with the case as he has no further
grievance against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the
dispute between the parties is basically marital discord between
the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.1 being the wife and
husband respectively. It is next 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 petitioners is remote
and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal
proceeding including the order dated 14.01.2020 passed in
connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 122 of 2019 (G.R. No. 165 of
2020) which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial
2 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


st
Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside against the
petitioners.
5. Learned counsel 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 proceeding including
the order dated 14.01.2020 passed in connection with Gonda P.S.
Case No. 122 of 2019 (G.R. No. 165 of 2020) which is now pending
st
in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranchi.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
of Parbatbhai
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
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
3 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


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 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
4 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


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 petitioners is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the
petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to them 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
14.01.2020 in connection with Gonda P.S. Case No. 122 of 2019
(G.R. No. 165 of 2020) which is now pending in the court of learned
st
Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Ranchi, as prayed for by the
petitioners, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in
connection with the order dated 14.01.2020 passed in connection
with Gonda P.S. Case No. 122 of 2019 (G.R. No. 165 of 2020) which
is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Ranchi, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named
above.

11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.
5 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025





2026:JHHC:31910
[ ]


12. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous petition.,
I.A. No.15464 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.
13. Pending I.As., if any, is disposed of being infructuous.


(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 30.10.2026
AFR/ Amar

Uploaded on- 31/10 /2026
6 Cr. M.P. No.2879 of 2025