The High Court possesses inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, particularly when parties to a personal dispute have reconciled, making a trial an exercise in futility.

ORDER (ORAL) :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The instant application has been filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, the “BNSS”), seeking quashing of the FIR bearing Case No.0009/2024, lodged before the Mangan Police Station, by Petitioner No.1 against the Petitioner No.2 for commission of the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the “IPC”), read with Sections 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the “MV Act”) and GR Case No.06 of 2024 (State of Sikkim vs. Lachu Rasaily), pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangan District, Sikkim, wherein charges have been framed against the Petitioner No.2 under of the , read with Sections 184 and 185 of the MV Act.

2. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that, Petitioners No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they have a minor child aged about five years. That, post the incident they are living together and the Petitioner No.2 has been taking care of the Petitioner No.1 as well as their minor child financially and otherwise. That, the parties have entered into a Compromise Deed dated 18- 09-2025, whereby the Petitioner No.2 undertakes inter alia not to assault the Petitioner No.1 or to harass, abuse or ill-treat her, in any manner whatsoever. That, the Petitioner No.2 intends to ensure peace and harmony between the parties.

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has no objection to the Petition subject to the condition that Petitioner No.2 shall abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the Compromise Deed dated 18-09-2025.

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 has been 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 , like the previous of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed and replaced by the ) deals in the exact same language, with inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

5. That, having been clarified, from the submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that the facts are not in dispute. Consequently, it would be necessary to examine the views of the Supreme Court on the scope of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which as earlier stated is now Section 528 of the BNSS. In B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another , (2003) 4 SCC 675 the Supreme Court held as follows;

“10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [ ] considering the scope of inherent power (1977) 2 SCC 699 of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was observed that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the