High Court quashed non-heinous petty private dispute proceedings on compromise, as conviction remote and continuation abuses process, causing oppression despite settlement.

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 in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352 , 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 and the said case is now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.2869 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the father of the opposite party No.2/informant and the brother of the petitioner no.2 and the Pairvikar of the petitioners wherein it has been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioners and the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that the informant has no grievance against the petitioners. It is next jointly submitted that good sense has prevailed between the parties after intervention of the friends and well-wishers and the dispute between the parties has been settled. Learned Counsel for the petitioners 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 public policy. 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352 , 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023, be quashed and set aside.

4. 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 the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Telaiya P.S. Case No.384 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 352 , 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita 2023.

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 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 considerat