Criminal Proceedings for Non-Heinous Private Disputes May Be Quashed if Amicable Settlement Renders Conviction Remote.

The petitioners sought the quashing of criminal proceedings and an order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the CJM, Bokaro, in connection with Sector 4 P.S. Case No. 99 of 2020 (G.R. Case No. 1179 of 2022)

The petitioners were charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

During the pendency of the case, the petitioners and the victim (Opposite Party No. 2) filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 6605 of 2026) supported by affidavits, stating that the dispute had been settled through the intervention of well-wishers and was primarily civil in nature

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences on the basis of a private settlement between the parties

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law given the bleak chances of conviction following the compromise

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.), which saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice

It relied heavily on the precedent established in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another (2017), which categorized cases with "overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour"—such as commercial, financial, or mercantile disputes—as fit for quashing if a settlement is reached and the wrong is private in nature

The Court noted that the dispute between the parties was essentially a civil matter to which a "cloak of criminal case" had been given

Applying the guidelines from Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court observed that the offences alleged were private in nature and did not involve public policy or serious "mental depravity" like murder or rape, which would otherwise preclude quashing

Since the informant (O.P. No. 2) explicitly stated a lack of interest in pursuing the case due to the settlement, the Court reasoned that the possibility of conviction had become "remote and bleak"

Consequently, requiring the petitioners to face trial would result in "great oppression and prejudice," constituting an abuse of the judicial process

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the CJM, Bokaro, against the petitioners. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly