Jharkhand HC Quashes Case Against Three Men After Informant Settles Private Dispute, Says Conviction Is Unlikely

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Chandwa P.S. Case No. 208 of 2025, including Charge Sheet No. 62 of 2026 and the cognizance order dated 23 March 2026.

Cognizance had been taken against them for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 351(1), 352, 318, 319 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The petitioners and the informant, supported by affidavits, stated that they had settled their private dispute and that the informant did not wish to proceed.

The State had no objection to the petition

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court stated that quashing on settlement depends on the nature and gravity of the offence and the facts of each case. Heinous or serious offences, and offences with significant societal impact, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have compromised; proceedings involving predominantly private disputes may be quashed where the settlement is complete, conviction is remote, and continuation would cause injustice or amount to abuse of process

The Court treated the dispute as private and found that the offences were neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity

The parties had reached a complete settlement, and the informant no longer wished to proceed; the State also did not oppose the petition. In those circumstances, the Court considered the possibility of conviction remote and continuation of the proceedings oppressive and unjust, warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction

The connected interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.