Jharkhand HC quashes cheating and forgery case after parties settle dispute, citing Supreme Court guidelines on compromise

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 319 | 2026:JHHC:12705

April 30, 2026 : The High Court of Jharkhand has quashed criminal proceedings against Abdul Wahab Ansari in a case arising out of alleged cheating and forgery, after noting that the dispute between the parties had been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution.

In its order dated April 30, 2026, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary allowed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to set aside the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, in Complaint Case No. 2393 of 2023. The trial court had earlier taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

During the hearing, both the petitioner and the complainant jointly informed the court that the dispute had been resolved with the intervention of mutual acquaintances. They stated that the case had arisen out of misunderstanding and that the complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the matter. The State also did not oppose the plea in light of the compromise.

The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Parbatbhai Aahir vs State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641, which clarify the scope of a High Court’s inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when parties have settled their disputes. The Supreme Court had held that such powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases of a predominantly civil or private nature.

Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the offences in the present case were not heinous and did not involve serious moral depravity. It noted that the dispute was essentially personal and had already been resolved, making the chances of conviction remote.

The court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would cause unnecessary hardship to the petitioner and would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, it quashed the entire case and the cognizance order passed by the Dumka court.

With this, the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed and the related interlocutory application was disposed of.

Case Reference : Cr.M.P. No. 1243 of 2026, Abdul Wahab Ansari @ Abdul Bahav Ansari vs State of Jharkhand and Another; Counsels: For the Petitioner: Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate; For the State: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl. P.P.; For O.P. No. 2: Mr. Raja Ravi S. Singh, Advocate.