Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh @ Krishna Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:25830 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 825 of 2025
1. Krishna Kumar Singh @ Krishna Singh, aged about 72 years, Son of
Late Durga Singh,
2. Mira Singh @ Meera Singh, aged about 65 years, wife of Krishna
Kumar Singh,
Both are permanent resident of H. No. 105/2, Karaya Road, P.O.
Circum Aveneue, P.S. -Karaya, District -Kolkata -700017 (West
Bengal), at present resident of Flat No. 3E3, Narendrapur, Block -E,
Sonarpur Complex, P.O. & P.S. -Narendrapur, District -24 Pargana,
Kolkata South, West Bengal.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Arpita Kumari, W/o Vishwamitra Singh, D/o Suresh Singh,
resident of Jai Hind More, Near Birsa Munda Park, Baliyapur, P.O.
& P.S. -Baliyapur, District -Dhanbad.
.... Opp. Parties
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate : Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate .....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 1 ( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) Dhanbad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 682 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 279 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act including the order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also to quash the order framing charge dated 01.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-
cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Woman, Dhanbad in the aforesaid case whereby and where under the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A,323, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.11407 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 as well as the informant-opposite party no.2, submits that therein it has categorically been stated that the parties have entered into a joint compromise with the intervention of well- Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 2
( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) wishers and close relatives. It is then submitted that, in view of the compromise, the informant- O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case and the dispute between the parties is a marital dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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 prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.
4. Learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition.
5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials 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 and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has 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 Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 3 ( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) 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 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. Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 4
( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) 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)
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offences nor is there any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The dispute between the parties is a private dispute relating to a matrimonial dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, 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 Dhanbad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 682 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 279 of 2024 involving the offences Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 5 ( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) punishable under Section 498A/313/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act including the order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A/323/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the order framing charge dated 01.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Woman, Dhanbad in the aforesaid case whereby and where under the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A,323, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, be quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 682 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 279 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 498A/313/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act including the order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima-facie case for the Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 6 ( 2025:JHHC:25830 ) offences punishable under Section 498A/323/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the order framing charge dated 01.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X- cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Woman, Dhanbad in the aforesaid case whereby and where under the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A,323, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed and set aside against the petitioners.
9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
10. Consequently, the interlocutory application no. 11407 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 25th August, 2025 AFR/Sonu-
Cr.M.P. No.825 of 2025 7