The High Court can quash FIRs in cases of private disputes that have been amicably settled, preventing abuse of process and securing justice.

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 FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner involving the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468/34 of Indian Penal Code in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamtara.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.3887 of 2025 which is supported by separate affidavits of the brother-in-law being pairvikar of the petitioner and the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the parties have amicably settled the differences and dispute and the joint agreement has been entered into by the parties dated 30.01.2025. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the informant has already been paid Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total settlement amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner is remote and bleak, therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Mihijam P.S.Case No. 30 of 2024 be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the FIR as well as the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024, 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 the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power t