High courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, when parties resolve personal disputes through reconciliation, thereby avoiding trial futility and preventing potential abuse of the judicial process to secure the ends of justice.

ORDER (ORAL) :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed a Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, the “BNSS”), afresh, along with Settlement Deed/Agreement executed between them on 01-07-2025.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner No.1 and Learned Counsel for the Petitioner No.2 submit that, the Petitioners have amicably settled the matter amongst themselves and seek quashing of the FIR before the Rangpo Police Station registered as Rangpo PS FIR Case bearing No.25/2024, dated 24-04-2024, against the Petitioner No.1 by the Petitioner No.2 for physically assaulting her with an iron rod on 23-04-2024.

(i) They also seek quashing of the consequent Charge- sheet filed against the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 323, 324 and 498A(a) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”), being GR Case No.03 of 2025 (State of Sikkim vs. Raj Kumar Chettri), pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Rangpo Sub- division, Sikkim, wherein charges have been framed against the Petitioner No.1 under , 324 and 498A of the .

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has no objection to the aforestated Petition, subject to the condition that Petitioner No.1 shall abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Settlement Deed/Agreement dated 01-07-2025.

4. Before embarking on a discussion and decision on the merits of the matter, it is imperative to point out that Section 528 of the BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of High Court and provides as follows;

“528. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

(i) On this facet while reverting to the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the “Cr.P.C.”), it is evident that the same language was employed therein save to the extent that, of the Cr.P.C. mentions "Code‟ while Section 528 of the BNSS mentions "Sanhita‟. Regardless, it is evident that of the deals with inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Suffice it to clarify here that the Cr.P.C., 1973, has since been repealed and replaced by the hence the foregoing discussions.

(ii) It is seen that the Petitioner No.1 has been charged under the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 498A of the IPC.

(iii) A perusal of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C indicates that Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable by the person to whom the hurt has been caused, however it is evident that the offences under Section 324 and Section 498A of the are not compoundable under of the Cr.P.C.

(iv) The Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu and Others vs. Radhika and Another , (2011) 10 SCC 705has expressed the view that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The power under the said provision can be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be in futility. The Supreme Court also distinguished between compoun