High Court can quash criminal proceedings in private disputes where parties settle their differences, emphasizing justice and preventing process abuse, unless the offences are considered heinous.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.126 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant as well as the victim jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.12857 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner No.2 which has been duly authorised by the other petitioners as well as the opposite party No.2- informant namely Komal Kumari and also draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.13939 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner No.2, which has been duly authorised by the other petitioners also and the victim namely Mithun Paswan and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute outside the court. It is next submitted that the petitioners are innocent and because of business rivalry, they have been implicated in this case. It is then submitted that the informant has given the name of the petitioners and later on, she came to know about the reality and realized her mistake. It is also submitted that the offence punishable under Section 109 of the B.N.S., 2023 is not made out against the petitioners and the alleged injury is not on the vital part of the body of the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant as well as the victim further jointly submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is next submitted that in view of the settlement between the parties, the opposite party No.2-informant as well as the victim does not want to proceed with the case. It is further submitted 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 chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.126 of 2025, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jirwabari P.S. Case No.126 of2025.

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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of which reads as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have re