LOVE KUMAR SINGH @ LAV KUMAR SINGH vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

[ 2026:JHHC:32528 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026


1. Love Kumar Singh @ Lav Kumar Singh, Aged about 34
years, S/O- Kunwar Singh, R/O- Khariya Bastı,
Sankosai, Road No. 4, Near Shiv Mandir, Dimna Road,
Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O-MGM Collage, P.S- Ulidih,
District- East Singhbhum.
2. Kush Kumar Singh @ Kush Singh, Aged about 36 years,
S/O-Kunwar Singh, R/O- Khadiya Basti, Shankosaı,
Road No 4, Near Shiv Mandir, Dimna Road, Mango,
Jamshedpur, P.O- MGM Medical College, P.S- Ulidih,
District- East Singhbhum
3. Munni Devi, Aged about 65 years, W/O- Kuwar Singh,
R/O- Khariya Basti, Sankosai, Road No. 4, Near Shiv
Mandir, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, PO M.G.M
Medical College, P.S-Ulidih, District- East Singhbhum.
...... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Nirbhay Kumar @ Nirbhaya Singh @ Nirbhay Singh,
Aged about 52 years, S/O- Nageshar Singh, R/O- H.
No. 243, Barık Basti, Brahmanand Basti, Kapali,
Tamoliya, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O- Kopali, P.S-
Chandil, District Seraikella Kharsawan.
….. Opposite Parties

For the Petitioners : Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. PP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv.



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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report being Chandil
(Kapali OP) PS Case No. 181 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 126(2), 303(2), 115(2), 109, 351(2), 352 of
B.N.S, 2023 , corresponding sections 341, 379, 323, 307, 379, 506,
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:32528 ]
504 of Indian Penal Code, presently pending in the court of
learned S.D.J.M, Chandil.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the
investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not
yet been submitted.

4. Drawing attention of the court to the I.A. no. 15311 of 2026 which
is supported by separate affidavits of the pairvikar as well as the
wife of the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 1 himself besides
the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 as also that of the informant – opp.
party no. 2, it is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2
that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties
have settled their dispute outside the court with the intervention
of the common friends and well –wishers and in view of the
compromise, the informant – opp. party no. 2 does not want to
proceed with the case. It is next submitted that for the self same
occurrence, there was a counter case from the side of the
petitioners also vide Chandil P.S. case no. 178 of 2025 lodged by
the petitioner no. 1. It is next submitted that there was free fight
between the parties and the parties had no intention to kill
anyone, so otherwise also, the offence punishable under Section
109 of BNS is not made out against the petitioners. It is further
submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute
and no public policy is involved in the case hence, continuation of
the criminal proceeding in connection with being Chandil (Kapali
OP) PS Case No. 181 of 2025 will amount to abuse of the process
of law and no purpose would be served in continuing with the
criminal proceeding after compromise have been entered into
between the parties, hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report being Chandil
(Kapali OP) PS Case No. 181 of 2025 be quashed and set aside
against the petitioners.

5. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer of the petitioners to quash and set aside the entire criminal
2 Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:32528 ]
proceedings including the First Information Report being Chandil
(Kapali OP) PS Case No. 181 of 2025 in view of the compromise
between the parties.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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
reported in ( 2014) 6 SCC 466 , in paragraph 29, has laid down the
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 Cr.P.C. while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings 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 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
3 Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:32528 ]
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 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)


7. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is needless to mention that
the dispute between the parties, is overwhelmingly and
predominantly has a dispute of civil character and in view of
compromise between the parties, the possibility of conviction of
4 Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:32528 ]
the petitioners is remote and bleak and continuation of the case
would put the accused persons to great oppression and prejudice
and extreme injustice would be caused by not quashing this
criminal case and continuation of the criminal proceeding will
amount to abuse of the process of law and in the interest of the
justice, the entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report being Chandil (Kapali OP) PS Case No. 181 of
2025 be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report being Chandil (Kapali OP) PS Case No. 181 of
2025 is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and
in view of the above, the aforesaid interlocutory application is also
disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 05 November, 2026
Smita AFR
/
Uploaded on 06.11.2026
5 Cr.M.P. No. 3396 of 2026