Criminal proceedings involving non-heinous private disputes may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS upon valid compromise.

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the JMFC, Dhanbad, for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC

The proceedings originated from Complaint Case No. 3401 of 2017

During the pendency of the case, the petitioner and the complainant’s wife (Opposite Party No. 2) entered into a compromise, supported by Interlocutory Application No. 8236 of 2026 and accompanying affidavits

Both parties submitted that the dispute was private, and they had settled the matter through the intervention of well-wishers

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash a non-compoundable criminal proceeding on the ground of a settlement between the parties

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding under Section 420 IPC, following a private compromise, would amount to an abuse of the process of law

The Court primarily exercised its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) to prevent the abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice

It relied heavily on the principles established in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Others v. State of Gujarat Another (2017) 9 SCC 641, which held that the High Court may quash proceedings involving non-heinous, private, or commercial disputes if a settlement makes the possibility of conviction remote and bleak

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and noted that the offence under Section 420 IPC in this instance arose from a "petty private dispute" rather than a heinous crime or an offence involving mental depravity

Applying the Parbatbhai Aahir guidelines, the Court observed that because a complete settlement was reached and the dispute was personal in nature, the likelihood of conviction was now "remote and bleak"

The Court reasoned that forcing the petitioner to undergo a trial despite the compromise would result in "great oppression and prejudice" and constitute "extreme injustice"

Consequently, the Court found that quashing the proceedings was necessary to prevent the abuse of the legal process

The Court allowed the Cr.M.P. and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 02.07.2019 in Complaint Case No. 3401 of 2017