Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash cross-cases involving trivial, land-related disputes and mutual consent.

The petitioners moved the High Court to quash an order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the ACJM-IV, Bhabua, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 448, 341, 323, 379, and 504/34 of the IPC.

The case originated from a land dispute between co-villagers which resulted in a physical altercation on 01.08.2020, leading to cross-FIRs (Chand P.S. Case Nos. 93 and 94 of 2020).

Petitioner No. 1 died during pendency, making the application infructuous as against him.

The petitioners contended that the allegations were trivial, no injuries were recorded, and the parties had reached a mutual understanding to end all litigations.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 93 of 2020 should be quashed in light of the trivial nature of the allegations and the mutual consent of the parties to resolve their dispute.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of law in a case involving minor compoundable-style offences and cross-cases.

The Court primarily exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023) 8 SCC 481, which established that criminal proceedings involving trivial or petty allegations, especially where cross-complaints are filed and no progress is made in the trial, should be quashed to prevent harassment and save judicial time.

The Court observed that the dispute was essentially a localized land conflict between neighbors and the allegations (Sections 323, 341, 504 IPC) were "trivial and petty" in nature.

Crucially, the Court noted that the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) consented to the quashing provided the petitioners similarly withdrew the cross-case (Case No. 94 of 2020).

The Court reasoned that since charges had not yet been framed, continuing the prosecution would only lead to undue harassment and a waste of judicial resources without any likely conviction, given the settlement.

Applying the logic from Sunil Kumar, the court found that stretching such petty incidents through the legal system constitutes "persecution" rather than "prosecution".

The holding was contingent upon the petitioners' undertaking to cooperate in quashing the cross-case (Chand P.S. Case No. 94 of 2020) and not pursuing further litigation against the informant.

The court concluded that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice and restore good relations between the parties.