High Courts can quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act based on a voluntary compromise if such quashing does not contravene the Act's underlying objectives and the settlement is genuine.

Order

18/04/2026

1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR No.23/2025 registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 115(2) & 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising out of it.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties and through mutual dialogues dispute has been resolved by the parties amicably. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Counsel submits that due to compromise, further proceedings in the impugned FIR are fruitless and continuation thereof would be a futile exercise and a waste of precious judicial time and resources. A compromise deed executed between the parties has been placed on record.

3. Complainant of this case is present in person and he has duly been identified by his counsel. Under his instruction, learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the FIR has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however, accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into without coercion and duress.

5. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners invites attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228.

6. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:

“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and re-iterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine-qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/ compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justic