The High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties when the offences are not heinous and the possibility of conviction is remote.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1437 of 2021 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, including the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 1437 of 2021 whereby and where the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of Indian Penal, now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.1881 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3 as well as of the complainant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have compromised the matter. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1437 of 2021 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, including the order taking cognizance dated 13.10.2023, passed in the said Complaint Case No. 1437 of 2021 whereby and where the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of Indian Penal, now pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in view of the compromise between the parties.

5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 has the occasion to consider the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia on the basis of compromise between the parties and has held in paragraph no.11 as under :-

11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court adverted to the body of precedent on the subject and laid down guiding principles which the High Court should consider in determining as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

“61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with