Criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 304/34 may be quashed where compromise makes conviction remote.

The petitioners sought to quash Sariya P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, registered under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning the death of the informant’s wife during treatment at a nursing home.

The investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The informant later learned that Petitioner No. 1 was not the treating doctor and Petitioner No. 2 was a fourth-grade employee at the nursing home; the parties thereafter settled the dispute, and the informant did not wish to proceed.

The State had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR and proceedings under Sections 304/34 IPC on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the settlement, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process or cause injustice.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, including the principles drawn from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and whether the dispute is predominantly private or personal.

Serious and heinous offences ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled; however, where the dispute is private, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation would cause oppression or prejudice, quashing may be appropriate to secure the ends of justice.

The Court treated the case as arising from a personal dispute and found that the offences, in the circumstances presented, were not heinous and did not involve serious mental depravity.

It took account of the informant’s later understanding of the petitioners’ respective roles, the parties’ complete settlement, and the informant’s wish not to proceed.

In light of the settlement, the Court considered the prospect of conviction remote and bleak and concluded that continuing the case would cause the petitioners oppression and prejudice, making quashing appropriate under the applicable inherent-power principles.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.