Non-heinous criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where conviction is remote and continuation would abuse process.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and entire criminal proceedings arising from Sahibganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026.

The case was 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, 1989, and was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.

The investigation was continuing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioners and the informant/opposite party no. 2 filed separate affidavits stating that they had voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute outside court.

The informant stated that he had no further grievance and did not wish to pursue the case.

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

The State did not oppose the quashing petition in view of the compromise.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement between the accused and the informant?

Whether, considering the nature of the alleged offences, the compromise, and the absence of grievous injury, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law?

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

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles 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 civil in nature, the parties have completely settled their differences, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation of the prosecution would cause injustice or amount to abuse of process.

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

The Court found that the alleged offences were neither heinous nor indicative of serious mental depravity.

The dispute arose from a misunderstanding and had been voluntarily and completely settled between the parties.

The informant expressly stated that he had no subsisting grievance and did not wish to proceed, while the State also raised no objection to quashing.

Applying the principles in Parbatbhai Aahir and Gian Singh, the Court concluded that the matter was predominantly private in nature, that the likelihood of conviction had become remote and bleak, and that continuing the prosecution despite the settlement would cause hardship to the petitioners and constitute an abuse of the process of law.

It held that the case was fit for exercise of inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR and the entire criminal proceeding arising from Sahibganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 54 of 2026 qua the petitioners.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and Interlocutory Application No. 13210 of 2026 was disposed of.