This court quashed criminal proceedings involving offences under IPC Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427 and 506 upon a complete compromise between parties in a private dispute.
Criminal proceedings in Tisra P.S. Case No.02 of 2023 were quashed and set aside regarding the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(2026:JHHC:9111)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.796 of 2026
------
… Petitioners
Versus
… Opposite Parties
For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. For the O.P. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Yash Raj Gupta, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
1
Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9111)
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and the said case is now pending in the court of learned J.M-1st Class, Dhanbad.
2
Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9111)
Tisra P.S. Case No.02 of 2023 which is now pending in the court of learned J.M-1st Class, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.
“ 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
3
Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9111)
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. 29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of
4
Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9111)
settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” (Emphasis supplied)
had the occasion to consider the scope and ambit of section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure vis-à-vis exercise of the said power for quashing the criminal cases, inter alia involving the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
5 Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
(2026:JHHC:9111)
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the petitioners to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 01st of April, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 02/04/2026
6
Cr. M.P. No.796 of 2026
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC should be quashed upon compromise between parties.
Whether Section 307 IPC charges render the case non-compoundable precluding quashing.
Whether a private dispute of civil flavour allows quashing despite allegations of heinous offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & AnotherRelied on¶28
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Eklavya Singh
Satyam Ritoliya
Shek Intekhab Ahmad
State of Jharkhand
Rahul Kumar Singh
Sonu Singh
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court