Cr.M.P./3141/2026 of WASIM ARIF ALIAS BHOLU KHAN ALIAS BHOLA KHAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 7 October 2026

1. Wasim Arif @ Bholu Khan @ Bhola Khan, aged about 28 years, Son of Zainul Abedin

2. Tabish Khan @ Md. Tabis Khan @ Md. Tabis, aged about 23 years, Son of Ejaj Sanjar Azad

3. Wasif Khan @ Wasif @ Wasim Hussain, aged about 28 years, son of Md. Mustaque Hussain

4. Anzaar Khan @ Anjar Khan @ Md. Anjar Khan, aged about 20 years, son of late Wasim Ullah Khan

5. Md. Irfan Khan @ Irfan Khan, aged about 36 years, son of Mushtak,

6. Shahbaaz Khan @ Shahbaj Khan, aged about 22 years, Son of Naseem Khan

7. Kasiff Ahmad @ Karif Ahmad @ Karsakh Khan, aged about 31 years, son of Mustaque Ahmad

8. Asfaq Khan @ Asfak Khan, aged about 47 years, Son of Mushtak Khan All are resident of Lohsinghna, Okni-2, P.O. & P.S. – Lohsinghna, District – Hazaribag, State Jharkhand 825301

....

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Faisal Akram @ Faiz Akram, son of Md. Afsar, resident of Aman Colony, Pagmil, Lohsinghna, P.O. & P.S.-Lohsinghna, Dist.-Hazaribag, State-Jharkhand 825301

….

Opposite Parties

P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY …..

For the Petitioners : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate For the State :Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Naresh Pd. Thakur, 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Lohsingha P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 2252 of 2026 whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023.

3. 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.14107 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioners and the victim-informant- opposite party No.2 submit that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have compromised their dispute outside the court with the intervention of well-wishers and close relatives, hence, the victim-informant-opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and the dispute between the parties is personal in nature. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that as compromise has been entered into between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is lastly submitted that the similar prayer of the co- accused namely Naseem Khan @ Lallu Khan @ Lalu Khan has already been allowed by this Court vide the judgment dated 30th September, 2026 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 3085 of 2026. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, in view of the compromise between the parties.

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 had 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 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. … 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 orthe 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)

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 institution of the criminal case is a result of some misunderstanding between the parties which has amicably been settled between the parties. 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 order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Lohsingha P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 2252 of 2026 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in connection with Lohsingha P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 2252 of 2026 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioners only.

9. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

10. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No.14107 of 2026 is disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 07thOctober, 2026 AFR/Saroj/-

Uploaded on 08/10/2026