BIPIN KUMAR YADAV @ BIPIN YADAV vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court





(2026:JHHC:26181)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.2504 of 2026
------
Bipin Kumar Yadav @ Bipin Yadav, aged about – 25 years, S/o-
Brahmdev Yadav, R/o- Bijli Ghat, P.O. + P.S.- Sahibganj (T), District-
Sahibganj, State- Jharkhand. … Petitioner
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. & P.S.- Sahibganj (T), Dist.- Sahibganj, Jharkhand
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Saba Ali, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, 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
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.
1
Cr. M.P. No.2504 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:26181)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner and learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards
Interlocutory Application No.12125 of 2026 which is supported by the
separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as 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
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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
petitioner 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 court of learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, 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
2
Cr. M.P. No.2504 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:26181)

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 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
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
3
Cr. M.P. No.2504 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:26181)

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)”


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
4
Cr. M.P. No.2504 of 2026





(2026:JHHC:26181)

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 petitioner is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioner 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.

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 Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, as prayed for by the
petitioner, be quashed and set aside.
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 Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, is
quashed and set aside qua the petitioner 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.12125 of 2026
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
st
Dated the 31 of August, 2026
AFR/ Animesh
Uploaded on- 01/09/2026

5
Cr. M.P. No.2504 of 2026