Jatin Sahay Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

( 2025:JHHC:28565 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 1587 of 2025

¶3

Jatin Sahay, aged about 59 years, S/o. Late Raj Kishore Sahay,

¶4

Rishabh Sahay, aged about 23 years, S/o. Jatin Sahay, Both residing at B.K. Sahay Compound, Tharpakna, P.O. & P.S. – Lalpur, District –Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶5

.... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Akash Raj, S/o Sri Arun Kumar, residing at Jail More, P.O.+P.S. & District –Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶9

…. Opp. Parties

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate : Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rohit Roy, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kr. Mahato, Advocate : Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate

¶13

By the Court:-

¶14

Heard the parties.

¶15

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 71 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 421 of 2023 including the order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under

¶16

Cr.M.P. No.1587of 2025

¶17

1

¶18

( 2025:JHHC:28565 )

¶19

the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.11719 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 during the pendency of the case, both the parties have settled their dispute outside the court and as such, the parties do not want to proceed with the case. The 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.

¶21

Learned Addl. 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Cr.M.P. No.1587of 2025

¶24

2

¶25

( 2025:JHHC:28565 )

¶26

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and

¶27

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 :-

¶28

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)

¶29

“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

¶30

Cr.M.P. No.1587of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

( 2025:JHHC:28565 )

¶33

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)

¶34

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this

¶35

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 and no public policy is involved in this case. They offences alleged are petty offences and in view of the final settlement between the parties; the

¶36

Cr.M.P. No.1587of 2025

¶37

4

¶38

( 2025:JHHC:28565 )

¶39

continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioners.

¶40

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 71 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 421 of 2023 including the order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

¶41

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 71 of 2021 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 421 of 2023 including the order dated 08.02.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Ranchi has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.

¶42

In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

¶43

Consequently, the interlocutory application no. 11719 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶45

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 1^st September, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶46

Cr.M.P. No.1587of 2025

¶47

5

Jatin Sahay v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Sahay v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Sekhar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rita Marandi Vs Lalita Alias Latika Baraik

Santosh Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manish Jain Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kasim Ansari Alias Kasim Sheikh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand