KULESHWAR SAHU @ KULESHWAR KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





(2026:JHHC:31449)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3293 of 2026
------
1. Kuleshwar Sahu @ Kuleshwar Kumar aged about 32 Years S/O
Shiv Narayan Sahu @ Sibu Sahu R/O Village – Surhu, P.O. & P.S-
Kamdara, District- Gumla (Jharkhand)
2. Sibu Sahu @ Shivnarayan Sahu aged about 60 Years S/O Late
Bucha Sahu R/O Village- Surhu, Nawatoli, P.O. & P.S.- Kamdara
District- Gumla (Jharkhand)
3. Ganesh Nag @ Ganeshwar Nag, aged about 38 Years S/O Raghaw
Sahu R/O Village – Pimpi, P.O. & P.S.- Kamdara District- Gumla
(Jharkhand)
4. Rohit Nag @ Rohit @ Rohit Kumar Nag, aged about 35 Years S/O
Raghaw Sahu R/O Village – Pimpi, P.O. & P.S.- Kamdara District-
Gumla (Jharkhand) … Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sudhir Sahu S/O Shri Sahu R/O Village- Surhu, Nawatoli, P.O. &
P.S.- Kamdara District- Gumla (Jharkhand)
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Md. Zafar Alam, 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
1
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:31449)

proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Kamdara P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the said case is now pending in the court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of
the case is still going on but 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.15258 of 2026 which is supported by the
separate affidavits of all the four petitioners as well as the
informant/opposite party No.2 of this case and submit that therein it has
categorically been mentioned that the present case arises out of a civil
dispute between the parties and during the pendency of this application,
both the parties have compromised the case outside the court with the help
of well-wishers and intervention of common friends. It is next jointly
submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the
informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a
personal 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
2
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:31449)

bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including
the First Information Report in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.23
of 2026 which is now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, be quashed and set aside.

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 proceedings including the First
Information Report in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.23 of 2026
which is now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gumla.

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
3
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:31449)

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 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
4
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:31449)

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 not heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental
depravity involved in this case rather the same relates to personal 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 proceedings including the First Information
Report in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.23 of 2026 which is now
pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gumla, as prayed for by the petitioners, be quashed and set aside against
the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report in connection with Kamdara P.S. Case No.23 of 2026
5
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:31449)

which is now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gumla, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners named
above.

11. In the result, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed.

12. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.15258 of 2026 is
disposed of accordingly.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated the 28 of October, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 29/10/2026

6
Cr. M.P. No.3293 of 2026