High Court may quash non-heinous criminal proceedings, including SC/ST Act offences, based on private settlement between parties.

The four petitioners moved the High Court to quash the FIR and entire criminal proceedings in Barharwa P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025.

The case was registered under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), and 109(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(x)(y)(za)(zc) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

While the investigation was pending and no charge sheet had been submitted, the petitioners and the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed a joint Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 4384 of 2026) supported by individual affidavits.

They submitted that the dispute, which possessed a "civil flavour," had been resolved through a compromise mediated by well-wishers, and the informant no longer desired to pursue the prosecution.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including those involving the SC/ST Act, on the basis of a private compromise between the parties.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which preserves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The landmark precedent Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another (2017) 9 SCC 641, which stipulates that while heinous or serious offenses (like murder or rape) cannot be quashed via compromise, cases that are predominately civil, commercial, or private in nature may be quashed if the settlement renders the possibility of conviction "remote and bleak".

The Court examined the nature of the allegations and determined that the offenses were not "heinous" nor did they involve "mental depravity"; instead, they constituted a private dispute.

By applying the guidelines from Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court reasoned that the complete settlement between the offenders and the victim meant that a trial would likely result in an acquittal.

The Court found that continuing the criminal case under such circumstances would subject the petitioners to "great oppression and prejudice" and would constitute an "extreme injustice".

Consequently, the Court determined that quashing the FIR was necessary to prevent the abuse of the legal process and to fulfill the ends of justice.

The Court held that since the dispute was private and settled, the continuation of the case would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.