The High Court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties if the dispute is private, not heinous, and continuation of proceedings would cause injustice.

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 BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.152 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.96 of 2025 (G.R. No.88 of 2025) whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 331(6) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 & Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and the said case is now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.3578 of 2026 which is supported by the affidavit of the opposite party No.2/informant wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends as well as the well-wishers and the dispute between the parties has been settled. It is further jointly submitted that the alleged injury sustained by the victim is not on the vital part of the body. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case and the compromise is not opposed to the public policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.152 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.96 of 2025 (G.R. No.88 of 2025) whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 331(6) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 & Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and the said case is now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur, be quashed and set aside.

4. 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 entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Jamshedpur in connection with Parsudih P.S. Case No.152 of 2024 corresponding to S.T. Case No.96 of 2025 (G.R. No.88 of 2025) whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 331(6) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 & Section 25(1-B) (a), 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act which is now pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Jamshedpur.

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 ofParbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another reported in(2017) 9 SCC 641 , had the occasion to consider t