Compromise in private disputes justifies quashing of FIR and proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, particularly when conviction chances are remote.

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 First Information Report and entire criminal proceedings in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 387, 388, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/informant jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.3299 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the pairvikar of the petitioners as well as the opposite party No.2/informant himself and submit that therein, it has categorically been mentioned that during the pendency of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioners and the opposite party No.2 have compromised the case and the disputes between them have been resolved amicably. It is next jointly submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant/opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the genesis of the occurrence is a civil dispute and the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report and entire criminal proceedings in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022, be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the First Information Report and entire criminal proceedings in connection with Taljhari P.S. Case No. 49 of 2022.

6. 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 jur