Criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where conviction is remote and continuation would abuse the process of law.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2024, registered under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

At the time of the petition, investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioners, informant and injured victim had entered into an amicable compromise, supported by affidavits; the informant and victim did not wish to pursue the case.

The State did not oppose the quashing petition.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

2. Whether, in light of the nature and stage of the case, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or cause injustice to the petitioners.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invoked as the source of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court applied the principles that this power may be used to quash even non-compoundable offences following settlement, but must be exercised sparingly; the Court should consider the nature and gravity of the offence, whether conviction is remote, the prejudice caused by continuation, and the stage of the proceedings.

Serious offences affecting society generally should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled; an early-stage settlement may, however, weigh in favour of quashing.

The Court considered that the case arose from a misunderstanding, the allegations were described as general and omnibus, and the parties had reached a voluntary compromise.

It also noted that the investigation remained ongoing, the charge-sheet had not been filed, and Section 109 of the BNS was not made out on the facts.

In those circumstances, the Court found the likelihood of conviction remote and bleak and concluded that continuing the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and constitute an abuse of process.

The connected interlocutory application was disposed of.