Compromise between parties can lead to quashing of FIR when the offences are private in nature and continuation would cause hardship, reaffirming the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. of Bagodar P.S. Case No. 98 of 2022 including the order taking cognizance dated 25.03.2023 in connection with S.T. Case No. 311 of 2023 arising out of the said Bagodar P.S. Case No. 98 of 2022 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Giridih has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 387/504/506/307/120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the informant while present in his Dhaba, three persons riding a motorcycle came to the said Dhaba of the informant and demanded money and fired upon the informant but the informant escaped. The said three persons were raising slogans of N.S.P.M. Zindabad and thereafter they fled away.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to page nos. 19-20 of the brief which is the copy of the certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the parties in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Giridih submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the informant without any fear, pressure and coercion has compromised the matter with the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

6. 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 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