The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in cases of private disputes where parties have compromised, provided the offences are not heinous, do not involve mental depravity, and quashing serves the ends of justice while preventing the abuse of the legal process.

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 the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. of Sector-4 SC/ST P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 registered under Section 341/323/325/379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, jointly drawing attention of this Court to the Interlocutory Application No. 3781 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the Parivikar of the petitioners and the informant-opposite party no.2 of the case submit that therein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 have decided to compromise the case and the opposite party no.2 does not want to pursue the case any further, against the petitioner and that the F.I.R. was instituted at the spur of the moment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law, as in view of the compromise, the chance of conviction of the petitioners is remote and bleak. It is lastly submitted that the dispute between the parties is basically a private dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

5. 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 plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or