High Court may quash non-heinous SC/ST Act proceedings after genuine compromise in a private dispute.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceeding arising from Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj

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

During the proceedings, the petitioner and the informant, Opposite Party No. 2, filed affidavits stating that they had voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute outside court, and that the informant no longer wished to pursue the case

The parties also submitted that no grievous injury had been caused, the allegations had been exaggerated, and the dispute was essentially private and possessed a civil flavour

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

1. 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 an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the informant.

2. Whether, having regard to the nature of the alleged offences, the compromise rendered the possibility of conviction remote and bleak, such that continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles restated from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature, the parties have completely settled their differences, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression, prejudice, or injustice. However, heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity, offences having a serious societal impact, and offences under special statutes ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the alleged offences were not heinous and did not involve serious mental depravity; rather, the dispute was essentially private in character.

The voluntary settlement was supported by affidavits of both the petitioner and the informant, and the informant had expressly stated that he had no further grievance and did not wish to proceed.

In light of the compromise, the absence of grievous injury, the parties’ characterization of the allegations as exaggerated, and the State’s lack of objection, the Court concluded that the likelihood of conviction was remote and bleak. Continuing the prosecution despite the complete settlement would therefore cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioner and amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026 pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj, was quashed and set aside insofar as it concerned the petitioner.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and Interlocutory Application No. 12125 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly.