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

The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising from Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026, registered under Sections 74, 76, 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Investigation was still pending and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The informant–opposite party no. 2 stated that the petitioner had been implicated due to rage and misunderstanding and that, following an amicable settlement, she no longer wished to continue the prosecution.

The parties asserted that the dispute was private, that no public policy was involved, and that the possibility of conviction was remote.

The State raised no serious objection to quashing in view of the compromise.

1. 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 while investigation was pending and before submission of the charge-sheet?

2. Whether the offences alleged were predominantly private in nature and sufficiently non-heinous so that continuation of the prosecution, despite settlement, would constitute an abuse of process or cause injustice to the petitioner?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles restated from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that the power to quash on the basis of settlement is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC and must be exercised having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Heinous offences, offences involving mental depravity, offences having a serious societal impact, and offences under special statutes ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have compromised.

However, proceedings arising from disputes of a private or personal nature may be quashed where the parties have completely settled the dispute, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the prosecution would be oppressive, unjust, or an abuse of process.

The Court found that the alleged offences were neither heinous nor indicative of serious mental depravity and that the criminal case had resulted from misunderstanding between the parties.

The informant had voluntarily affirmed the settlement and expressed unwillingness to pursue the prosecution, while the State did not seriously oppose the relief.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir and Gian Singh, the Court treated the dispute as private in character, concluded that the settlement materially weakened the prosecution case and rendered the prospect of conviction remote and bleak, and held that continuing the proceedings would cause hardship to the petitioner.

It held that the case was a fit one for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, and quashed the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings in Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 06 of 2026 qua the petitioner.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed, and Interlocutory Application No. 11646 of 2026 was disposed of.