The court can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences when parties amicably settle their disputes, especially if the accusations do not reflect serious societal harm.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-12-2025 Heard Mr. Sanobar Shahnaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. (Dr.) Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 374 of 2022 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Sections 34 1 , 323, 307, 379, 504, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, without going into the merits of the case, informs that the petitioner and informant are co-villagers and due to land dispute an altercation took place between the parties, for which the present FIR has been lodged. Learned counsel further informs that the parties have already filed the compromise petition on 17.06.2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. On these grounds learned counsel submitted that the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside and quashed.

4. Learned APP for the State has opposed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, I find that the offences as alleged in the FIR registered under Section 307 and 379 of Indian Penal Code is cognizable in nature and the parties are ready to settle the dispute outside the court. The parties are co-villagers and the present dispute arises due to previous enmity relating to a piece of land, which led to lodging of the present FIR under Section 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned District Court has taken cognizance in the aforesaid sections.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors.

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 , in para nos. 8 to 20 has observed that after amicable settlement between the parties, proceeding with the criminal prosecution will serve no purpose and would amount to abuse of process of law, which are reproduced hereinafter:

“ 8. Coming to the facts, notwithstanding the fact that the High Court has mixed up the concepts of compounding and powers of quashment, still the case needs to be considered from the point of view of Section 482.

9. Will the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when parties come forward with a settlement? In that event, what should be the duty of the court and what are the tests to be applied to decide in which cases settlements would be accepted and in which cases it would not be?

10. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others , (2019) 5 SCC 688 , after discussing the ratio in Narinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another , (2014) 6 SCC 466 and other judgments, this Court held:-

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or