High Court may quash non-heinous criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS following a private settlement between parties.

The petitioner filed this petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding and the cognizance order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamshedpur, in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No. 152 of 2024

The petitioner was charged under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 331(6), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act

During the proceedings, the petitioner and the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed Interlocutory Application No. 3578 of 2026, supported by an affidavit, stating that a compromise had been reached between the parties through the intervention of well-wishers

It was jointly submitted that the injury sustained by the victim was not on a vital part of the body and the dispute was purely private

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings in view of a private settlement between the accused and the victim

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (the successor to Section 482 of the CrPC), 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

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Others v. State of Gujarat Another (2017) 9 SCC 641, which established that while heinous and serious offenses (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed based on a compromise, the High Court may quash proceedings in private or personal disputes where the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to a settlement

The court observed that the offenses involved were neither heinous nor serious offenses of mental depravity, characterizing the matter as a "petty private dispute"

In applying the Parbatbhai Aahir framework, the court reasoned that because a full and complete settlement had been reached, the probability of conviction was "remote and bleak"

The court determined that continuing the criminal proceeding would result in "great oppression and prejudice" to the petitioner and would constitute an abuse of the process of law

Furthermore, the State indicated it had no objection to the quashing in light of the compromise

Consequently, the court found that quashing the proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice

The court held that the settlement between the parties rendered the continuation of the case futile and unjust

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly