The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the dispute is private, the parties have settled, and continuing the case would be an abuse of process as the likelihood of conviction is remote.

By the Court:- 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 First Information Report instituted as Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 120 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 1182 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi.

3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.4508 of 2026 which is supported by the separate affidavits of petitioners nos.1, 2 and 3 and the opposite party No.2-informant and submit that therein, it has been mentioned that during the pendency of this case, the dispute between the parties have amicably been settled and the opposite party no.2-informant does not want to proceed with the case against the petitioners. It is next submitted that the dispute between the parties is a private dispute and no public policy is involved in this case. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise between the parties, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the chances of conviction of the petitioners are remote and bleak. Hence, it is submitted that the First Information Report in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 120 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 1182 of 2017 be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no objection for quashing the First Information Report instituted as Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 120 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 1182 of 2017 which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available 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 & Others vs. State of Gujarat & 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)