Allowed¶35

Mahanand Kumar Mahto v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Mar 2025W.P.(Cr.)/203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise between parties; Article 226 writ petition (criminal); Sections 363 and 366A IPC; Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure inherent power; Section 320 CrPC compounding contrast; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024; marriage of petitioner with alleged victim accepted; affidavits of informant and victim; private dispute, no public policy involved; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; FIR quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed; IA No. 2467 of 2025 disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024; disposal of Interlocutory Application No. 2467 of 2025. ¶35

Mahanand Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand — Corruption | Jharkhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing and setting aside of the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024; disposal of Interlocutory Application No. 2467 of 2025.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, should be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶18

Court's answer

The offences involved in the case are neither heinous offences nor serious offences of mental depravity; the criminal case was instituted as a result of misunderstanding and confusion between the parties, has been amicably settled, and its continuation would cause hardship to the petitioner.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

This is a fit case where the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 should be quashed and set aside.

¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order of Anil Kumar Choudhary, J., High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, dated 19-03-2025, allowing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the FIR in Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. On Interlocutory Application No. 2467 of 2025, supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner's father, the respondent no.2-informant and the victim, counsel jointly submitted that the parties had entered into a compromise, the petitioner's marriage with the alleged victim had been accepted, and the informant and victim did not wish to proceed; the State had no objection. Applying the principles laid down in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 (para 11, reproducing the Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 guidelines on quashing upon compromise under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the Court held that the offences were neither heinous nor of mental depravity, the dispute was private and fully settled, and continuation would cause hardship; accordingly the FIR was quashed and set aside and the writ petition allowed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 203 of 2025

¶2

Mahanand Kumar Mahto, aged about 24 years, son of Krishna Kumhar Mahto, resident At +P.O.-Gagi, P.S.-Kanke, Dist.-Ranchi

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Pradeep Lohra, son of late Ram Kumar Lohra, resident At +P.O.-Gagi, P.S.-Kanke, Dist.-Ranchi

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

….. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate …..

¶11

By the Court:-

¶12

Heard the parties.

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.2467 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the father of the petitioner as well as the respondent no.2-informant and the victim of the case submits that

¶15

therein it has been categorically mentioned that the parties have

¶16

W.P. (Cr.) No.203 of 2025

¶17

¶18

entered into a compromise and the victim does not want to proceed with the case. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties, the parties have accepted the marriage of the petitioner with the alleged victim hence, the informant and the victim have no grievance against the petitioner and does not want to proceed with the case. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that because of some misunderstanding and confusion this case was instituted. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and the dispute between the parties is a private dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024, in view of the compromise between the parties.

¶20

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 v. State of Gujarat 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

¶21

W.P. (Cr.) No.203 of 2025

¶22

¶23

compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-

¶24

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)

¶25

“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

¶26

W.P. (Cr.) No.203 of 2025

¶27

¶28

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)

¶29

Perusal of the record reveals that the offences involved in this case are neither heinous offence nor there is any serious offence of mental depravity involved in this case. The institution of the criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding and confusion between the parties which has been amicably settled between the parties. In view of the final settlement between the parties; the continuation of this criminal proceeding will cause hardship to the petitioner.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the FIR being Kanke P.S. Case No. 89 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.

¶31

W.P. (Cr.) No.203 of 2025

¶32

¶33