Criminal proceedings arising from petty private disputes may be quashed upon compromise where conviction is remote and bleak.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceeding arising from Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 174 of 2020.

The case alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and was pending before the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sahibganj.

The petitioner submitted that investigation was still pending and that no charge-sheet had been filed.

During the proceedings, the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2/informant filed affidavits stating that they had amicably settled the dispute and that the informant no longer wished to pursue the case.

The State also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings in view of the compromise.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the informant?

Whether the alleged offences constituted a private dispute of such a nature that, after settlement, the possibility of conviction was remote and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which, following Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, holds that the power to quash on the basis of settlement is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Heinous offences, offences involving serious mental depravity, and offences under special statutes ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have compromised; however, proceedings arising from a predominantly private or personal dispute may be quashed where the settlement is complete, the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation would cause oppression, prejudice, injustice, or abuse of process.

The Court also considered the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court characterised the alleged offences as neither heinous nor involving serious mental depravity, but as arising from a petty private dispute between the parties.

Since the informant had entered into a complete settlement with the petitioner and expressly stated that she did not wish to proceed, the Court concluded that the likelihood of conviction had become remote and bleak.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir and Gian Singh, the Court held that continuing the prosecution despite the settlement would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioner and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The State’s lack of objection further supported the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction.

It quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR in Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 174 of 2020, insofar as it related to the petitioner, along with the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sahibganj.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.