RANCHI, India, Jan. 8 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:

I.A. No.13414 of 2025

Heard the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this interlocutory application.

Accordingly, this interlocutory application is rejected as not pressed.

Cr.M.P. No. 3343 of 2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 876 of 2024 including the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 05.06.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.14308 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the sole petitioner and the proprietor of the opposite party no.2 submit that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that both the parties have compromised their dispute before the Mediator, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee on 04.09.2025 and in view of the settlement between the parties, the complainant does not want to proceed with the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 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)

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqFE9rjgpIeUI%2Ff1e01ticJfLlFxPjTmFwedsm1PGIyBe&caseno=Cr.M.P./3343/2024&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010367532024&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.