High Court quashed proceedings for non-heinous offences on parties' compromise in private dispute, as continuation abuses process, conviction remote, securing ends of justice per Supreme Court guidelines.

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 entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report arising out of Tatisilway P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered under Sections 115 (2)/ 126(2)/ 109 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the informant drawing attention of this Court to I.A. No. 17495 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the O.P. Nos.2 and 3 submit that therein it has been mentioned that consequent upon the compromise effected to between the parties; the matter has amicably been settled between the parties and the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are the batch mates and they are pursing the courses in the same University.

4. It is next submitted jointly that the dispute between the parties is basically 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 chances of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak.

5. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.104 of 2025 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- XXII, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Tatisilway P.S. Case No.104 of 2025 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- XXII, Ranchi.

7. 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 Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 paragraph-29 of which reads as under:

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravi