High Court quashed proceedings under inherent powers upon parties' settlement in petty neighbourhood dispute over cattle grazing, as conviction remote, continuation abuses process, following guidelines for sparing use in non-heinous cases.

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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding as also the FIR including the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hazaribagh by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 in connection with Barkatha P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. No. 1988 of 2025.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case has not yet been committed to the court of Sessions and charge has not yet been framed.

4. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 by drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.1647 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of both the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and the informant does not want to proceed with 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 the parties are the residents in the same locality and are neighbours and the alleged occurrence took place on provocation, in connection with a petty dispute regarding grazing of cattle in the field and the petitioners have no intention to kill anyone. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the full and final settlement between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, the chance of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of the process of the law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. 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.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after 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, in paragraph 29, has laid down the 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 Cr.P.C. while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings 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 ha