MADHUKAR SINGH vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Court
Jharkhand High Court



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.3231 of 2025
------

1. Madhukar Singh, aged about 59 years, son of Ayodhya
Singh, Director of Maa Tapo Construction Pvt. Ltd;

2. Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Singh, aged about 40 years, son of
Madhukar Singh,

3. Man Singh @ Sunny Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of
Madhukar Singh,
All residents of Singh More, Kalyanpur, PO: Hatia, PS:
Jaganathpur, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) 834003
… Petitioners
Versus


1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ramnaresh Singh, resident
of Village: Flat No.604, Krishna Apartment, PO & PS-
Sukhdevnagar, District – Ranchi, One of the Directors of
M/S Unifor Developers Pvt. Ld., Ranchi
3. Suraj Pratap Singh, Son of Late B.P. Singh, resident of
Village: Asha Shri Garden, P.O. & P.S. Bariyatu, District –
Ranchi, One of the Directors of M/S Unifor Developers Pvt.
Ld.
…
Opposite Parties

------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, Addl.P.P.
For the O.P. No.2&3 : Mr. Karan Pandey, Advocate
------

P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1 Cr. M.P. No.3231 of 2025



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]


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
proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 516 of 2014 corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014 in which charge sheet has been submitted
and the First Information Report of the case was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, now pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2-informant and the opposite party No.3 being
the partners of the informant jointly draw the attention of this Court
towards Interlocutory Application No.10488 of 2026 which is supported
by the separate affidavits of each of the petitioners as well as the
opposite party No.2 & 3 and submit that therein, it has categorically
been mentioned that with the intervention of common relatives and
well-wishers, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute. It is
next jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the
parties, the opposite party No.2 & 3 do not want to proceed with the
case against the petitioners. It is then submitted that the dispute
between the parties is basically a civil dispute. 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
2 Cr. M.P. No.3231 of 2025



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]

remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal
proceedings including the First Information Report in connection with
Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 516 of 2014 corresponding to
G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, now pending before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

4. 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 entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S.
Case No. 516 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, now
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
5. 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
3 Cr. M.P. No.3231 of 2025



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]

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 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.3231 of 2025



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]

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)”


6. 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 is involved in this case rather the same relates to private
dispute between the parties.

7. 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.

8. 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 Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 516
of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, now pending
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set
aside against the petitioners named above.

9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the First
Information Report in connection with Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S.
Case No. 516 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, now
5 Cr. M.P. No.3231 of 2025



[ 2026:JHHC:26491 ]

pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, is
quashed and set aside against the petitioners named above.
10. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.
11. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition, I.A. No. 10488 of 2026 stands disposed of accordingly.


(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
nd
Dated the 02 of September, 2026
AFR/ Saroj

Uploaded on 03/09/2026

6 Cr. M.P. No.3231 of 2025