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

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the First Information Report including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1809 of 2017 registered involving the offences punishable under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 page- 16-17 of the brief; which is the copy of the certified copy of the petition filed by both the parties in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute and the both the informant and the petitioners are neighbours, hence, the opposite party No.2/informant does not want to proceed with the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law; as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1809 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau, be quashed and set aside, against the petitioners.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the First Information Report including the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Patan P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No.1809 of 2017 which is now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Daltonganj, Palamau.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, had 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 ac