Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Sikk) 37
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J
Deepam Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Kumari Bhandari – Respondent
Crl.M.C. No.01 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Rathi
For the Respondents: M. N. Dhungel, Yadev Sharma, Sujan Sunwar
The High Court may exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes where the parties have reached an amicable settlement, even for non-compoundable offences, to prevent abuse of the judicial process and secure the ends of justice.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Maintainability of petition - Petition filed under Section 528 of the new code for an incident where FIR was registered under the old code - Held, if an application is instituted on or after July 1, 2024, it must be filed under the provisions of the new code, rendering the corresponding section of the old code redundant for new filings. (Paras 6, 7, 8, and 9)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Inherent power of High Court - Offences arising out of civil disputes - When parties have settled their matrimonial, family, or civil disputes arising out of mercantile or commercial transactions through an amicable compromise, the High Court may exercise its inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings, even if the offences are non-compoundable, to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice. (Paras 10, 11, and 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings pending before a trial court. The criminal case originated from a land dispute between adjacent property owners. Following the registration of the FIR under several sections of the penal code, the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the civil land disputes through formal deeds and decrees. Subsequently, the parties executed a settlement agreement regarding the criminal case, agreeing to maintain social peace and harmony.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the dispute was essentially private and civil in nature. It held that while some offences were non-compoundable, exercising inherent power to quash the proceedings was justified because the conflict had been fully resolved between the parties, and continuing the trial would be an exercise in futility. The court also clarified that for proceedings initiated after the commencement of the new criminal procedure legislation, the new law applies to petitions regarding quashing.
Issues: Whether a petition for quashing criminal proceedings initiated under the old code should be filed under the new legislation if brought after the new law's commencement, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed based on a settlement in a matter arising from a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is not limited by statutory compounding provisions. When a dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the parties have achieved an amicable resolution that makes the likelihood of conviction negligible, the High Court serves the interests of justice by quashing the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the judicial process.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR and all related criminal proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request to quash fir based on civil dispute settlement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicability of bnss vs crpc for pending/new proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. power to quash fir involving civil disputes settled amicably. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final order quashing the fir and criminal proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. The present Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeks quashing of Pakyong PS Case, FIR No.31 of 2022, dated 16- 08-2022 and criminal proceedings in General Register Case No.208 of 2024 (State of Sikkim vs. Deepam Pradhan and Others), pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the aforementioned FIR arose out of a land dispute between the Petitioners herein and the two Private Respondents, who are boundary holders of landed property situated adjacent to each other. The Respondent No.1 filed the FIR at the Pakyong Police Station, on 16-08-2022, alleging that on 13-08-2022 the Petitioners No.1, 4, 5, 7 and their domestic help came to the house of the Respondents No.1 and 2 and started breaking down the brick wall and also assaulted them. The FIR was registered against the said Petitioners under Sections 447/323/354/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). On completion of investigation, Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 442/448/ 452/351/354/120B/34 of the IPC and against the Petitioners No.2 to 7 under the same Sections, except Section 354 IPC and included Sections 323 and 426 of the IPC, in the said Magisterial Court. The case was registered in the Court as General Register Case No.208 of 2024. Charges were framed against the Petitioner No.1 under Sections 323/452/351/426/120B/354/34 of the IPC and against the Petitioners No.2 to 7 under Sections 323/452/351/426/120B/34 of the IPC. The parties have now settled their respective claims over the suit land and resolved their civil dispute amicably, in Title Suit No.01 of 2022, vide Compromise Deed, dated 21-12-2024[Annexure P9 (colly)], between Respondent No.2 and Petitioner No.5 and other Government Agencies. The Compromise Deed [Annexure P10 (colly)] also dated 21-12-2024, was executed between Petitioner No.5 and Respondent No.2, in Title Suit No.38 of 2022. Pursuant to the Compromise Deeds, dated 21-12-2024 (supra), Decree dated 01-02-2025, were issued, individually [Annexure P9 (colly) and Annexure P10 (colly)], in both the Title Suits (supra).
3. After the settlement of the civil disputes, the Petitioners and the Respondents settled the disputes involving General Register Case No.208 of 2024 by duly executing a Settlement Deed/Agreement, dated 04-02-2025 [Annexure P11 (Colly)], executed between the Respondents and the Petitioners, whereby they have jointly agreed not to pursue the matter before the Magisterial Court, to maintain cordial relations with each other and peace and harmony in society. That, the instant Petition is being filed as some of the offences under which the Petitioners were booked and Charges framed against them under the IPC are non- compoundable offences. Learned Counsel urges this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR No.31 of 2022 as well as the above-mentioned trial in General Register Case No.208 of 2024 on the strength of the Compromise Deed/Settlement Deed/Agreement [Annexure P11 (Colly)] to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to the prayers put forth by the Petitioners as the parties have amicably resolved their differences which essentially arose out of a civil dispute and was therefore of a private nature. However, the Petition has been erroneously filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, whereas it ought to have been under Section 482 of Code of Cr
