High Court quashed non-heinous criminal proceedings under inherent powers due to parties' full compromise in private family dispute, remote conviction chance, and to prevent abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 582 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 11.12.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-cum-A.M- V, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1902/2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate-cum- A.M-V, Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 01.12.2025 submit that therein it has been mentioned that with the help of friends and well wishers, the petitioner and his niece namely, Firoza Khanam who is wife of the opposite party no.2 have entered into a joint compromise and joint declaration by the niece of the petitioner namely, Firoza Khanam and the O.P. No.2 have been filed before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Varanasi. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties the opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with this case and the copy of the joint compromise entered into between the petitioner and opposite party no.2 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure-A. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. It is then jointly submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved. It is lastly submitted that the continuation of criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence it is submitted that the order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-cum-A.M-V, Ranchi in connection with the Complaint Case No. 1902/2019 be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that the State has no objection to the prayer for quashing of order dated 11.12.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-cum-A.M-V, Ranchi in connection with the Complaint Case No.1902/2019, 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 Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others v. 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 dow