Cross-cases arising from a settled private dispute may be quashed when parties decline prosecution.

The petitions arose from cross-complaints concerning an incident on 29 November 2025 between parties involved in an earlier dispute over a passage.

The incident allegedly began when a party attempted to lay a pipeline in the passage that had been the subject of a civil suit; that suit had been resolved by compromise and decree on 12 November 2014.

The complaints resulted in separate criminal proceedings, including allegations under Sections 74, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The parties submitted that the pipeline dispute had since been settled, that the pipeline was laid under a Government scheme, and that neither side wished to pursue the prosecutions.

The State opposed quashing, pointing to the injuries.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the cross-complaints should be quashed where both parties considered the underlying dispute settled and did not wish to prosecute.

2. Whether the existence of injuries required the parties to face trial despite the circumstances of the incident and the parties’ stated position.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as reflected in the petitions’ reference to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The alleged offences arose under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court did not cite precedent or set out a broader test for quashing; it assessed the circumstances of the dispute, the parties’ stated lack of interest in prosecution, and whether continuing the trials would serve a purpose.

The Court treated the complaints as cross-cases arising from the same incident and noted that the incident appeared connected to a genuine misunderstanding over laying a pipeline in the disputed passage.

It took account of the earlier civil settlement, the subsequent resolution of the pipeline issue, and both sides’ stated wish not to pursue the cases.

Although the State relied on the existence of injuries, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, requiring trial would serve no purpose.