Non-heinous criminal proceedings may be quashed after settlement where the dispute is private and conviction is remote.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1608 of 2021, including the order dated 15 January 2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, which found a prima facie case under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 504/34 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was pending at the stage of appearance, and charges had not yet been framed.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners and opposite party no. 2—the complainant—amicably settled their dispute through a memorandum of settlement facilitated by common friends and well-wishers.

The complainant stated that he did not wish to pursue the case, and the parties jointly submitted that the dispute was personal, involved no public policy consideration, and that the likelihood of conviction was remote.

The State raised no serious objection to the petition in view of the compromise.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the criminal proceeding and the cognizance/ prima facie order where the parties have amicably settled a private dispute?

Whether continuation of the proceedings, despite the settlement, would constitute an abuse of process or cause undue hardship when the alleged offences are neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to the inherent-power jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles earlier stated in 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 personal, the parties have completely settled it, and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

However, heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity, offences having a serious impact on society, and offences under special statutes ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC were not heinous and did not involve serious mental depravity.

Since the complainant had voluntarily settled the dispute, expressly stated that he did not wish to proceed, and the State had no serious objection, the dispute was treated as personal and private rather than one implicating public policy.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court concluded that the settlement substantially weakened the possibility of conviction and that continuing the prosecution would cause hardship to the petitioners and serve no meaningful justice-related purpose.

It quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 1608 of 2021, including the order dated 15 January 2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, insofar as it related to the petitioners.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed, and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of.