MD MERAJ ANSARI @ MD. MERAAZ ANSARI @ MERAJ vs STATE OF JHARKHAND
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
( 2026:JHHC:26849 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2711 of 2026
Md. Meraj Ansari @ Md. Meraaz Ansari @ Meraj, aged about 27
Years, Resident of village –Kadal Neori Vikash Vidalaya, P.O. –
Sadar, P.S. –Sadar, District –Ranchi.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Md. Ejaj Ahmad Khan, Son of Late Naimullah Khan, aged about 59
Years, resident of village –Dhipa Toli, P.O. –Pundag, P.S.
Jagarnathpur (Pundag O.P.), Ranchi.
…. Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
…..
For the Petitioner : Md. Razaullah Ansari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Aulia Begum, 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 F.I.R. being Cyber P.S. Case
No. 37 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 319(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section
66C/66D of the Information Technology Act.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet
has not yet been submitted in this case.
Cr.M.P. No.2711 of 2026
1
( 2026:JHHC:26849 )
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the informant-opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of
this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.11854 of 2026
which is supported by separate affidavits of the informant-
opposite party no.2 as well as the petitioner submits that
therein it has categorically been mentioned that during the
pendency of the case, both the parties have settled their
disputes outside the court with the help of well-wishers and
friends without any coercion and undue influence and as such
the informant does not want to proceed with the case any
further against the petitioner. It is next submitted that as
compromise has been entered into between the parties, the
chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak.
Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in view
of the compromise between the parties.
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 reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641 had the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the
Cr.M.P. No.2711 of 2026
2
( 2026:JHHC:26849 )
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 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
Cr.M.P. No.2711 of 2026
3
( 2026:JHHC:26849 )
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 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 neither heinous offence nor is there any serious offence
of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the
criminal case is the result of some misunderstanding 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 petitioner.
Cr.M.P. No.2711 of 2026
4
( 2026:JHHC:26849 )
8. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered
view that this is a fit case where the F.I.R. being Cyber P.S. Case
No. 37 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 319(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section
66C/66D of the Information Technology Act, be quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the F.I.R. being Cyber P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025
registered for the offences punishable under Section
319(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and under Section 66C/66D of
the Information Technology Act, is quashed and set aside qua
the petitioner.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
11. Consequently, the Interlocutory Application No.11854 of 2026
is disposed of.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 7 September, 2026
AFR/Sonu/-
Uploaded on 11.09.2026
Cr.M.P. No.2711 of 2026
5