The High Court can quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled their dispute, and continuation would be an abuse of process, particularly in non-heinous cases.

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 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 364 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ranchi.

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.13663 of 2024 which is supported by separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioners and the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has been mentioned that the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute during mediation and agreement has been entered into between the parties which has already been filed as Annexure-3 to the instant quashing application. 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. It is then jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the informant-opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case, therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 364 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Doranda P.S. Case No. 364 of 2023, 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 to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and ci