Jharkhand High Court: The Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar Choudhary, allowed the praying for quashing the criminal proceeding and the first information report (FIR) instituted against the alleged offenders considering the compromise held between the parties for settling the dispute amicably together outside the Court.
Background
The case arising from the institution of an FIR under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 352 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27, Arms Act, 1959 against the respondent by the victims reached a settlement on the intervention of the well-wishers. A petition was filed before this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR.
The petitioners and the respondent draw the attention of this Court towards interlocutory application which is supported by the separate affidavits and submit that it has categorically mentioned that with the intervention of the well-wishers, common friends and close relatives, both the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court.
In view of the compromise between the parties, the respondent does not want to proceed against the petitioners. It was also submitted jointly that the genesis of the occurrence is a petty dispute regarding demand of payment of money and the dispute between the parties is 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 bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR be quashed and set aside.
Decision and Analysis
The Court having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it was pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 considered the scope and ambit of Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (which corresponds to Section 528 BNSS) vis-à-vis exercise of the said power for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences punishable under Section 307, Penal Code, 1860.
The Court on perusal of the record observed that the offences involved in this case are not heinous offences nor was there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case, rather the same relates to private dispute between the parties relating to demanding the payment of money in which no public policy was involved.
The Court held that because of complete settlement between the respondent and the victim, the possibility of conviction of the petitioners was remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal proceeding would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice by not quashing the criminal proceeding despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
The Court accordingly allowing the petition, quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR filed against the petitioners.
[Vikash Verma v. State of Jharkhand, Cr.M.P. No.1842 of 2026, decided on 25-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Priya Saw, Juhi Kumari, Advocates
For the Respondent: Shiv Shankar Kumar, Addl. P.P., Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
