SHIVAM PASWAN @ SHIVAM KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3270 of 2026
------
1. Shivam Paswan @ Shivam Kumar, aged about 19 years, S/O-
Sanjay Paswan, R/O- Lunch Ghat, P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S.-
Sahibganj (T), District- Sahebganj.
2. Kallu Paswan @ Ashish Kumar, Aged about 18 years, S/O-
Sanjay Paswan, R/O- Bijli Ghat, P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S.- Sahibganj
(T), District- Sahebganj.
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Vikram Kumar Rajak, Aged about 28 years, S/O- Bijay Kumar
Rajak, R/O- 55-A, Krishna Nagar, Near Bari Durga Mandir,
Kulipara, P.O.- Sahibganj, P.S- Sahibganj (T), District- Sahibganj.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Deepak Sahu, 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 F.I.R. in connection with
Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023, Section 27 of the Arms act and Section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act; pending in the court of learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I-Cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.
1 Cr. M.P. No.3270 of 2026





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]


3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation
of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been
submitted in this case.

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.14625 of 2026 which is
supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners no.1,
Petitioner no.2 and parvikar-cum-brother of the petitioners no.1
and 2 themselves and the informant/opposite party no.2 of this
case and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned
that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the
court voluntarily, hence, the informant/opposite party No.2 does
not want to proceed with the case as he has no further grievance
against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the
informant/opposite party No.2 next submits that no grievous
injury has been sustained by anyone and otherwise also some
exaggerations have been made to make the case a serious one. It is
next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a
private dispute having civil flavour. 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 F.I.R. in connection with
Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 which is now pending in the
2 Cr. M.P. No.3270 of 2026





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]


court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-Cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, 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 F.I.R. in connection with Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.54 of 2026
which is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST
Act, Sahibganj.
6. 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 (2017) 9 SCC 641
reported in 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.3270 of 2026





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]


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.3270 of 2026





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]


the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction toquash 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 F.I.R. in connection with
Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 which is now pending in the court
of learned Additional Session Judge-Cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Sahibganj, 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 Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.54 of 2026 which is now
pending in the court of learned Additional Session Judge-Cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, 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.3270 of 2026





2026:JHHC:31481
[ ]



12. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous petition., I.A.
No.14625 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly.


(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 28.10.2026
AFR/ Amar

Uploaded on- 31/10/2026
6 Cr. M.P. No.3270 of 2026