High Court quashed non-heinous private dispute criminal proceedings upon voluntary compromise, as continuation would abuse process, render conviction remote, and cause prejudice, following guidelines on inherent powers.

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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu Bhurkunda P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 385, 387 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ramgarh.

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.1323 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the opposite party No.2/informant and the petitioner wherein it has categorically been mentioned that a compromise has been entered into between the petitioner and the opposite party No.2. It is next submitted that the present case arose out of a personal dispute between the parties and both the parties have amicably arrived at a settlement on their free-will and decided not to proceed with the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that this compromise is voluntary and without any pressure and with free will and wish. 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 chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Patratu Bhurkunda P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 385, 387 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 Patratu Bhurkunda P.S. Case No.23 of 2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No.631 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 385, 387 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

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, (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 compla