High Court may quash criminal proceedings after amicable settlement in private, non-heinous disputes.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising from Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 395 of 2025, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

The case alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Investigation was still pending and no charge-sheet had been filed.

During the proceedings, the petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into an amicable settlement through a memorandum of settlement.

Opposite Party No. 2 stated that he had no grievance against the petitioners, and the State also expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.

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 settlement between the parties?

Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the parties’ settlement justified quashing the proceedings on the ground that the dispute was personal and the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to the inherent power previously recognized 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 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, as reproduced and applied in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the dispute has an overwhelmingly private or civil character, the parties have genuinely settled the matter, and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

However, heinous offences, offences involving serious mental depravity, offences having a serious impact on society, and offences under special statutes ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the alleged offences were neither heinous nor indicative of serious mental depravity and arose from a personal dispute between the parties.

The settlement was supported by affidavits and a memorandum of settlement, and Opposite Party No. 2 expressly stated that he had no surviving grievance against the petitioners.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court concluded that the dispute possessed a predominantly private character, that the continuation of the prosecution would cause oppression, prejudice and injustice to the petitioners, and that the likelihood of conviction had become remote and bleak.

Consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It quashed and set aside the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S. Case No. 395 of 2025, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed; I.A. No. 13,447 of 2026 was disposed of, while I.A. No. 12,844 of 2026 was rejected as not pressed.