High Court may quash non-compoundable SC/ST Act proceedings when parties genuinely settle purely private disputes.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0015/2024 dated 25 March 2024, registered at Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragarh, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and consequential protection from arrest

During the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent nos. 3 and 4 appeared through video conferencing and were identified by their respective counsel.

They stated that the dispute had been amicably settled voluntarily and without pressure, and filed a compounding application, affidavits, and a compromise memo.

Respondent no. 3, Naresh Singh, stated that he did not wish to prosecute the petitioner further.

The State did not oppose the application, acknowledging that the dispute was private in nature despite the offence under the SC/ST Act being non-compoundable.

Whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR alleging offences under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, in view of the voluntary compromise and the private nature of the dispute, would serve any useful purpose.

The Court considered Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the latter being treated as a non-compoundable offence.

It relied on the principles recognized in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303; Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2013) 11 SCC 497; B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; and Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677, under which constitutional or inherent jurisdiction may be exercised to terminate criminal proceedings involving predominantly private disputes where the parties have genuinely settled and continuation of the prosecution would amount to a futile exercise.

The Court applied this principle notwithstanding the formal non-compoundable character of the offence under the SC/ST Act.

The Court verified the compromise through the parties’ personal statements, affidavits, and compromise memo, and noted that the settlement had been entered into voluntarily and without coercion.

Since respondent no. 3 expressly stated that he did not wish to pursue the prosecution, and the State raised no objection, the Court characterized the dispute as personal and private.

Applying the Supreme Court’s precedents permitting quashing of non-compoundable criminal proceedings in appropriate cases, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be a futile exercise and that the ends of justice would be served by accepting the compromise.

The criminal writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the compounding application and compromise memo were directed to form part of the order.