After Parties Settle Personal Dispute, Jharkhand HC Quashes BNS Proceedings Against Four Men

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings following a settlement between the parties

The court held

The Court answered the issues in favour of the petitioners and held that this was a fit case for exercising its inherent jurisdiction.

It also directed

It quashed the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings in Kamdara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, qua the petitioners. The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of

01Facts

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and related proceedings in Kamdara P.S. Case No. 23 of 2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed

¶ 2–3

The petitioners and the informant, supported by affidavits, stated that the dispute arose from a personal dispute with a civil flavour and had been settled outside court. The informant did not wish to proceed, and the State did not oppose quashing

¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings following a settlement between the parties

¶ 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the nature of the offences and the parties’ complete settlement made continuation of the proceedings an abuse of process, notwithstanding that the offences were not being compounded before the trial court

¶ 6–9

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice

¶ 2, 6

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which discusses the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court applied the rule that the power to quash on settlement is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences. In deciding whether to quash, the High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. Heinous or serious offences, and offences with a substantial societal impact, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled. By contrast, where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature, the Court may quash if the settlement is complete, the prospect of conviction is remote, and continuing the proceedings would cause oppression or injustice

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115 Section 117 Section 126 Section 303 Section 351 Section 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 320

04Reasoning

The Court treated the dispute as personal and civil in flavour and found that the offences involved were neither heinous nor offences of serious mental depravity

¶ 7

The informant had affirmed the settlement and did not wish to pursue the case, while the State raised no objection. In light of the complete settlement, the Court considered the likelihood of conviction remote and concluded that continuing the prosecution would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and would not serve the ends of justice

¶ 4–5, 8–9