Criminal proceedings may be quashed on compromise where the dispute is predominantly civil and conviction is remote.

The petitioners, Nisar Ansari and Shamim Ansari, 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 entire criminal proceedings in Chaibasa Muffasil P.S. Case No. 185 of 2025.

The case involved alleged offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 316(2), 61, 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa.

During the proceedings, the petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2/informant filed affidavits stating that the dispute had been amicably settled.

The informant asserted that he had received the entire amount from the petitioners through demand draft and did not wish to pursue the criminal case.

The parties submitted that the dispute was essentially civil and concerned payment of money.

The State expressed no serious objection to the quashing petition in view of the settlement.

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

Whether the nature of the dispute, the settlement between the parties, and the remote possibility of conviction justified quashing the proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice?

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 restated the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303: although the power to quash is distinct from statutory compounding, the High Court may quash proceedings where the dispute has an overwhelmingly civil, commercial, financial or private character, the parties have completely settled the matter, and the possibility of conviction is remote.

However, heinous offences, offences involving serious mental depravity, offences affecting society at large, and offences under special statutes or involving public servants ordinarily should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the offences alleged did not constitute heinous offences or offences involving serious mental depravity.

It treated the underlying dispute as a petty private dispute concerning payment of money and noted that the informant had received the full settlement amount and no longer wished to proceed.

Since the parties had resolved their entire dispute, the continuation of the prosecution would cause hardship to the petitioners, while the likelihood of conviction was remote and bleak.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir and Gian Singh, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The connected interlocutory application was consequently disposed of.