The High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences if the underlying dispute is essentially civil and parties have reached an amicable settlement, thereby serving the ends of justice and preventing abuse of the court process.

ORDER :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The present Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeks quashing of Pakyong PS Case, FIR No.31 of 2022, dated 16- 08-2022 and criminal proceedings in General Register Case No.208 of 2024 (State of Sikkim vs. Deepam Pradhan and Others), pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the aforementioned FIR arose out of a land dispute between the Petitioners herein and the two Private Respondents, who are boundary holders of landed property situated adjacent to each other. The Respondent No.1 filed the FIR at the Pakyong Police Station, on 16-08-2022, alleging that on 13-08-2022 the Petitioners No.1, 4, 5, 7 and their domestic help came to the house of the Respondents No.1 and 2 and started breaking down the brick wall and also assaulted them. The FIR was registered against the said Petitioners under Sections 447/323/354/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). On completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 442/448/452/351/354/120B/34 of the IPC and against the Petitioners No.2 to 7 under the same Sections, except Section 354 IPC and included Sections 323 and 426 of the IPC, in the said Magisterial Court. The case was registered in the Court as General Register Case No.208 of 2024. Charges were framed against the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 323/452/351/426/120B/354/34 of the IPC and against the Petitioners No.2 to 7 under Sections 323/452/351/426/120B/34 of the IPC. The parties have now settled their respective claims over the suit land and resolved their civil dispute amicably, in Title Suit No.01 of 2022, vide Compromise Deed, dated 21-12-2024[Annexure P9 (colly)], between Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.5 and other Government Agencies. The Compromise Deed [Annexure P10 (colly)] also dated 21-12-2024, was executed between Petitioner No.5 and Respondent No.2, in Title Suit No.38 of 2022. Pursuant to the Compromise Deeds, dated 21-12-2024 (supra), Decree dated 01-02-2025, were issued, individually [Annexure P9 (colly) and Annexure P10 (colly)], in both the Title Suits (supra).

3. After the settlement of the civil disputes, the Petitioners and the Respondents settled the disputes involving General Register Case No.208 of 2024 by duly executing a Settlement Deed/Agreement, dated 04-02-2025 [Annexure P11 (Colly)], executed between the Respondents and the Petitioners, whereby they have jointly agreed not to pursue the matter before the Magisterial Court, to maintain cordial relations with each other and peace and harmony in society. That, the instant Petition is being filed as some of the offences under which the Petitioners were booked and Charges framed against them under the IPC are non-compoundable offences. Learned Counsel urges this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR No.31 of 2022 as well as the above-mentioned trial in General Register Case No.208 of 2024 on the strength of the Compromise Deed/Settlement Deed/Agreement [Annexure P11 (Colly)] to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to the prayers put forth by the Petitioners as the parties have amicably resolved their differences which essentially arose out of a civil dispute and was therefore of a private nature. However,