The High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is private, the parties have amicably settled the matter, and the court determines that continuing the trial would be an abuse of process or an exercise in futility.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The instant Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, the “BNSS”).

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner No.1 submits that the FIR No.18 of 2021, dated 14-04-2021, before the Singtam Police Station, lodged by Petitioner No.3 Santosh Pradhan, S/o Damber Singh Pradhan, against the Petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 420/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”), and Charge-Sheet dated 24-05-2024, filed under Sections 420/468/471/467/34 of the , be quashed.

(i) That, the proceedings in G.R. Case No.77 of 2024 ( State of Sikkim vs. Til Bahadur Pradhan and Others ) pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangtok, Sikkim, also be quashed.

(ii) It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged under a mistaken belief that the Petitioners No.1 and 2 had interpolated the name of Damber Singh Pradhan, father of Petitioner No.3, in the Authorization-cum-NOC document, dated 15-03-2020. As a consequence, on the basis of the FIR lodged, Charge-sheet was submitted by the Police against the Petitioners No.1 and 2 under Sections 420/468/471/467/34 of the IPC and GR Case No.77 of 2024 registered before the aforementioned Court. During the proceedings in the said matter, the Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3, realized that the entire dispute had arisen out of a misunderstanding and therefore they decided to resolve their differences amicably. To that end, they have entered into a written agreement viz.; Deed of Compromise dated 11-09-2025. That, all parties have done so of their own free will and settled all disputes and differences amongst themselves. Should the Criminal Case be allowed to continue the relationship between the families shall be destroyed. That, hence in order to maintain cordial family relations and as the dispute is essentially between Petitioners No.1, 2 and 3, who are related to each other, the matter may be given a closure by quashing the FIR and the consequent criminal proceedings.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners No.2 and 3 endorses the submissions put forth by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner No.1.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor objecting to the prayers advanced the argument that the offences are non-compoundable and ought to be allowed to continue to its logical end by completion of the trial. That, in view of the Sections of the IPC involved being non-compoundable, the Petition deserves to be and ought to be dismissed.

4. I have given due consideration to all the competing submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for the opposing parties and perused all documents placed before me.

(i) In Manoj Sharma vs. State and Others , (2008) 16 SCC 1 the question involved was whether an FIR under Sections 420/468/471/34/120B of the IPC deserves to be quashed either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the “Cr.P.C.”) [now Section 528 of the BNSS] or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves. The Supreme Court observed follows;

“8. In our view, the High Court's refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The first information report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the polic