Compromises in personal disputes allow for quashing of criminal proceedings, provided they don't involve heinous offences and do not violate public policy.

By the Court:-

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 the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Dhanbad (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 30 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 682 of 2024, S.T. Case No. 279 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 498A /313/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act including the order taking cognizance dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1^st Class, Dhanbad, whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima-facie case for the offences punishable under Section 498A /323/313/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also to quash the order framing charge dated 01.03.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X- cum-Special Judge, Crime Against Woman, Dhanbad in the aforesaid case whereby and where under the learned trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498A ,323, 307 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.11407 of 2025, which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 as well as the informant-opposite party no.2, submits that therein it has categorically been stated that the parties have entered into a joint compromise with the intervention of well-wishers and close relatives. It is then submitted that, in view of the compromise, the informant- O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case and the dispute between the parties is a marital dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

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

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 @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another 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 4 82 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