The High Court may quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise if the offence is not heinous or serious, the dispute is private in nature, and continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

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 B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including First Information Report of Jirwabari P.S. Case No. 148 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that 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 the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No.8633 of 2026 which is supported by separate affidavits of the petitioner no.1 who is duly authorized to sworn the affidavit on behalf of all the petitioners as well as the informant-opposite party no. 2 submits that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the matter has been compromised and both the parties have settled their issues. It is next jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant-opposite party no.2 does not want to proceed with the case and the parties have also filed a joint compromise petition in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj. It is further jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that no public policy is involved in this case and as compromise has entered into between the parties, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned P.P. submits that the State has no serious 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 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 and Others vs. 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 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 complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitud