SHAKTI LALDEV ALIAS PICHHA vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

[ 2026:JHHC:31701 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2026

Shakti Laldev @ Pichha, aged about 33 years son of Viraj
Laldev, resident of Village Naudega, P.O -Behari, P.S-
Behari, Dist- Darbhanga, Bihar. ...... Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Babuchand Yadav, son of Late Budhan Yadav, resident
of Village-Guhiyatri, P.O- Gumgi, P.S- Tisri, Dist-
Giridih, Jharkhand ….. Opposite Parties


For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Prem Mardi, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. PP

For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Vishu Prabhakar Pathak, Adv.



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 BNSS, 2023 with the
prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal
proceeding as well as FIR registered vide Tisri P.S. Case No. 81 of
2021 for the offences punishable under sections 419, 328, 380, 34 of
IPC pending in the court of learned JMFC, Giridih.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation
of the case is still going on and chargesheet has not been
submitted as yet.

4. Drawing attention of the court to the I.A. No. 2362 of 2026 which
is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as the
informant – opp. Party no. 2, it is jointly submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 that therein it has categorically been mentioned by the
parties that the parties have entered into a compromise and
because of that informant – opp. party no. 2 is not interested in
1 Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31701 ]
pursuing the case. Therefore, the chance of conviction of the
petitioner is remote and bleak. It is further submitted that because
of some misunderstanding, this case was instituted and no injury
has been sustained by any person in the occurrence. It is next
submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute
and no public policy is involved in the case hence, continuation of
the criminal proceeding in connection with Tisri P.S. Case No. 81
of 2021 will amount to abuse of the process of law and no purpose
would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding after
compromise have been entered into between the parties, hence, it
is jointly submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well as
FIR registered vide Tisri P.S. Case No. 81 of 2021, be quashed and
set aside against the petitioner.

5. Learned Addl. PP submits that the State has no objection to the
prayer of the petitioner to quash and set aside the entire criminal
proceeding as well as FIR registered vide Tisri P.S. Case No. 81 of
2021 in view of the compromise between the parties.
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and
Others v. State of Gujarat and 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
2 Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31701 ]
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 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. Because of the compromise 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 accused
person 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.

8. In view of the submission made jointly by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2,
this court is satisfied that the parties have amicably resolved their
entire dispute and thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, it
3 Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2026

[ 2026:JHHC:31701 ]
would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding and the continuance of criminal
proceeding would tantamount to the abuse of the process of law
and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate that the entire
criminal proceeding against the petitioner be put to an end.

9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as FIR
registered vide Tisri P.S. Case No. 81 of 2021, is quashed and set
aside against the petitioner.
10. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent and in view of the disposal of this criminal
miscellaneous petition, the I.A. No. 2362 of 2026 is also stands
disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
th
Dated, the 27 October,2026
Smita AFR
/

Uploaded on 02.11.2026
4 Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2026