High Court may quash cheating and forgery proceedings arising from private civil disputes after complete settlement.

The petitioners—Madhukar Singh and his two sons—invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceedings in Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 516 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

The case arose from allegations under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and a charge-sheet had already been submitted.

The informant and the other private opposite party, stated to be directors/partners of M/s Unifor Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed affidavits confirming that the dispute had been amicably settled through the intervention of relatives and well-wishers.

They did not wish to pursue the criminal case, and the parties jointly submitted that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature.

The State also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement.

The Court exercised the inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the inherent powers previously exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which reiterated the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that the power to quash is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC and may be exercised where the dispute is predominantly civil, commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or otherwise private in nature; the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the completeness of the settlement, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation of the prosecution would cause oppression, prejudice or injustice.

Heinous offences, offences involving serious mental depravity, offences under special statutes, and offences committed by public servants in that capacity ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the offences alleged were neither heinous nor indicative of serious mental depravity and arose from a private dispute with a predominantly civil character.

The affidavits and submissions established a complete settlement between the petitioners and the private opposite parties, who expressly declined to proceed with the case.

In light of that settlement, the Court assessed the possibility of conviction as remote and bleak.

It further held that continuing the prosecution would subject the petitioners to oppression and prejudice and would cause injustice despite the parties’ full resolution of the dispute.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir and Gian Singh, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It quashed and set aside the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings in Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 516 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3240 of 2014, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, insofar as the petitioners were concerned.

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