High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings, even under special penal statutes, when a voluntary compromise is reached in cases of a private, non-heinous nature, where continued prosecution would constitute an abuse of process and where the possibility of conviction remains remote.

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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Barharwa P.S. Case No.79 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 109(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(1) (r) (s) (x) (y) (za) (zc) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the said case is now pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sahibganj.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still going on but charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.4652 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioner as well as the informant/victim/opposite party No.2 of the case and submit that therein it has been mentioned that petitioner and opposite party No.2 have entered into a compromise upon the intervention of well-wishers and close friends and in view of the compromise between the parties, the informant/opposite party No.2 does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is having civil flavour and some exaggerations were made to make the case a serious one. Learned counsel for the petitioner next 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 petitioner is remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection to the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

6. 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 p