Inherent jurisdiction permits quashing of private criminal proceedings after settlement where conviction is remote.

The petitioner, Dhoni Yadav, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Jharkhand High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings arising from Koderma P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025, registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma

The investigation was continuing and no charge-sheet had yet been submitted

The informant and the petitioner entered into a compromise, and the informant stated that he had no further grievance and did not wish to pursue the case

The alleged circumstances concerned the deceased’s familial relationship with the petitioner and suspicion raised by her in-laws regarding their telephone conversations, followed by alleged taunting of the deceased, who thereafter committed suicide

The State raised no serious objection to quashing the proceedings in view of the settlement

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS on the basis of a compromise between the petitioner and the informant

Whether, considering the nature of the allegations, the settlement between the parties, and the likelihood of conviction, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause injustice to the petitioner

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

It relied on *Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat*, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which, following *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2012) 10 SCC 303, holds that the power to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC and may be exercised where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature, the parties have fully settled the matter, and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

However, heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences having a serious impact on society ordinarily should not be quashed merely on the basis of compromise

The Court also considered Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, under which the FIR had been registered

The Court found that the allegations arose from a private and familial dispute and did not involve a heinous offence or serious criminal conduct of the kind ordinarily excluded from compromise

The parties had completely settled their dispute, the informant no longer wished to proceed, and the State had no serious objection

Applying the principles in *Parbatbhai Aahir*, the Court concluded that the settlement substantially weakened the prosecution case, making the possibility of conviction remote and bleak.

Continuing the proceedings despite the compromise would therefore cause oppression, prejudice, and injustice to the petitioner and would amount to an abuse of the process of law

The entire criminal proceeding arising from Koderma P.S. Case No. 197 of 2025, registered under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS and pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, was quashed and set aside insofar as the petitioner was concerned

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly