ANJIT SAW @ ANJIT KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3295 of 2026
------

1. Anjit Saw @ Anjit Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/O – Late
Vijay Saw,

2. Ram Chandra Saw, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Badho
Saw,
Both are R/O Vill- Pihra Manpur, P.O. – Pihra, P.S. –
Gawan, District - Giridih
… Petitioners
Versus


1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Dhaneshwar Chaudhary, aged about – 77 years, S/O – Late
Pannu Pasi, R/O Vill- Pihra Manpur, P.O. – Pihra, P.S.
Gawan, District – Giridih
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Mritunjay Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ankur Anand, 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/setting aside the First
Information Report including the entire criminal proceedings in
connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026 registered for
1 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]

the offences punishable under Sections 316(4)(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338,
340(1), 371(7), 115(2), 351(1), 352, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now pending
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Giridih.

3. At the outset, 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 the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2- informant jointly draw the attention of this
Court towards Interlocutory Application No.15078 of 2026 which is
supported by the separate affidavits of both the petitioners as well as
the opposite party No.2– informant and submit that therein, it has
categorically been mentioned that with the intervention of elders of
village, the parties have amicably settled their dispute between them. It
is next jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the
parties, the opposite party No.2- informant does not want to pursue the
case against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the dispute
between the parties is basically a private dispute and no public policy is
involved in this case. 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 petitioners is remote and
2 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]

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 for
quashing the prayer of the petitioners 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 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur &
Others vs. State of Gujarat & 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
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
3 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]

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 the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied)”
4 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]




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 First Information Report including the entire criminal
proceedings in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 07 of
2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4)(5),
318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 371(7), 115(2), 351(1), 352, 61(2), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 4 of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, now
pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih, be quashed and set aside against the
petitioners named above.

10. Accordingly, the First Information Report including the entire
criminal proceedings in connection with Giridih (SC/ST) P.S. Case No.
07 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
316(4)(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 371(7), 115(2), 351(1), 352, 61(2), 3(5)
5 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026



[ 2026:JHHC:31450 ]

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 4 of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Giridih, is quashed and set aside against the
petitioners named above.

11. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

12. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition, I.A. No. 15078 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 28 of October, 2026
AFR/ Saroj

Uploaded on 29/10/2026

6 Cr. M.P. No.3295 of 2026