Criminal proceedings for non-heinous offences may be quashed upon genuine compromise where conviction is remote.

The petitioners, who were closely related residents of Village Channar Bankote, challenged FIR No. 0104/2023 registered at Police Station Banihal under Sections 382, 323, 147, 342, 504 and 506 IPC.

The dispute arose in the context of construction of the Katra–Banihal railway line and alleged environmental damage caused by a batching plant and disposal of wastewater and construction muck near the petitioners’ village.

Petitioner No. 3 had pursued complaints before the authorities and proceedings before the National Green Tribunal, following which remedial directions were issued against the contractor.

The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Project Manager of the contractor, lodged the FIR as a counterblast to those complaints and falsely accused them of assault, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, abuse, and snatching a mobile phone and ₹35,000.

During the pendency of the petition, the parties entered into a written compromise dated 22 December 2023. Their statements were recorded before the Registrar Judicial, and Respondent No. 2 stated that he had no objection to quashing the FIR against all the petitioners.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties?

Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the settlement rendered the possibility of conviction remote and continuation of the prosecution an abuse of the process of court?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, described as akin to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of court.

It relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, which holds that offences involving heinous crimes, serious mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, offences under special statutes, and offences committed by public servants in that capacity should ordinarily not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

Conversely, criminal cases having an overwhelmingly civil or private character may be quashed where the parties have resolved their disputes; the Court must also consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and whether continuation of proceedings would cause oppression, prejudice, or injustice.

The Court found that the offences alleged under Sections 382, 323, 147, 342, 504 and 506 IPC did not constitute offences of a heinous nature warranting continuation despite settlement.

The parties had voluntarily resolved their dispute through a written compromise, and Respondent No. 2, the complainant, expressly consented to quashing of the FIR.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that the dispute was predominantly private in character, the likelihood of conviction was bleak, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of court.

It allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0104/2023 dated 30 April 2023, registered at Police Station Banihal, District Ramban, under Sections 382, 323, 147, 342, 504 and 506 IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of the compromise and to secure the ends of justice.

The petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.