The High Court may quash criminal proceedings when parties reach a compromise, particularly in non-heinous offences, as continuation of proceedings may cause undue hardship.

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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners including the order taking cognizance dated 04.02.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih in connection with Complaint Case No.1604 of 2022, whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Giridih has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 406, 427, 451, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.3758 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 and the opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioners and the complainant have entered into a compromise with the intervention of well-wishers and friends and both the parties have resolved their dispute. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the complainant does not want to pursue the case. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and as compromise has been entered into between the parties, the chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4. Learned P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition, in view of the compromise between the parties.

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 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 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 limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint