High Court quashed proceedings for non-heinous offences in civil dispute upon party settlement, as conviction remote and continuation abusive, per 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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (4), 316 (5), 318 (4), 3 (5) of the B.N.S, 2023 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the informant/opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.17222 of 2025 which is supported by the separate affidavits of all the three petitioners as well as the informant/opposite party No.2 of this case and submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the parties have reached at a settlement in respect of the dispute for which this case was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil 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. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, be quashed and set aside.

5. 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 initiated against the petitioners in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No.268 of 2025 which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

6. 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 considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

“61. … the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or com