The Jharkhand High Court recently exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings after the parties reached a compromise. The judgment reaffirms that criminal cases with a predominantly civil flavour - where no heinous offence or public policy is involved - can be quashed to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nusrat Sultana, was accused in Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010 (corresponding to Spt. G.R. No. 476 of 2010), registered at Gumla Police Station. The case arose from a dispute between the petitioner and the informant, Ganpati Singh, which the court later characterized as having a civil flavour. On 03.01.2019, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) entered into a compromise during the pendency of the criminal miscellaneous petition
- The compromise was formalized through Interlocutory Application No. 6931 of 2026, supported by affidavits from both parties
- The informant explicitly stated that he did not wish to proceed with the case due to the settlement
- The investigation was ongoing, but the charge sheet had been submitted only against co-accused persons, not the petitioner
- The dispute was private in nature, with no involvement of public policy or heinous offences
Procedural History
- Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010: FIR registered
- 03.01.2019: Non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla
- Cr.M.P. No. 1576 of 2026: Criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR and proceedings
- Interlocutory Application No. 6931 of 2026: Filed to record the compromise between the parties
- 10.06.2026: Present judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of:
- The FIR registered in Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010
- The entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 03.01.2019 issuing a non-bailable warrant
- Any further proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the case
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to quash an FIR and criminal proceedings where:
- The dispute between the parties is of a civil flavour
- The parties have amicably compromised the matter outside court
- No heinous offence or public policy is involved
- Continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression and injustice to the accused
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The dispute was private and civil in nature, with no heinous offence or public policy involved
- The parties had compromised the matter, and the informant no longer wished to proceed with the case
- Continuation of the proceedings would cause hardship and injustice to the petitioner
- The chances of conviction were remote due to the compromise, making the proceedings an abuse of process
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, which lays down guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings based on compromise
For the State
- The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not object to the quashing of the proceedings in view of the compromise between the parties
For Opposite Party No. 2 (Informant)
- The informant supported the petitioner’s plea, stating that the dispute had been settled and he did not wish to proceed with the case
- The dispute was private and civil, with no public interest involved
The Court's Analysis
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, which outlines the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the precursor to Section 528 BNSS). The court quoted the following key passage from the judgment:
"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... The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are:
... the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim."
Applying these principles, the court observed:
- The offences involved in the case were not heinous and did not involve mental depravity
- The dispute was private and civil, arising from a misunderstanding between the parties
- The parties had amicably settled the matter, and the informant did not wish to proceed
- Continuation of the proceedings would cause hardship and injustice to the petitioner
- The chances of conviction were remote due to the compromise
The court concluded that this was a fit case for exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
The Verdict
The Jharkhand High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed:
- The FIR registered in Gumla P.S. Case No. 160 of 2010
- The entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 03.01.2019 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner
- All further proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the case
The court disposed of Interlocutory Application No. 6931 of 2026 recording the compromise between the parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Quash Criminal Proceedings in Civil-Flavour Disputes
- Private disputes with no heinous offences or public policy involvement can be quashed if the parties compromise
- The nature and gravity of the offence are critical factors - heinous crimes like murder, rape, or dacoity cannot be quashed even if compromised
- Section 528 BNSS (like its predecessor, Section 482 CrPC) empowers High Courts to prevent abuse of process and secure justice
When Quashing Is Appropriate
- The dispute must be predominantly civil (e.g., commercial, financial, matrimonial, or family disputes)
- The wrong must be private, with no societal impact
- The chances of conviction must be remote due to the compromise
- Continuation of proceedings must cause oppression or injustice to the accused
When Quashing Is Not Appropriate
- Heinous offences (murder, rape, dacoity, etc.) cannot be quashed even if compromised
- Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or committed by public servants in official capacity
- Cases involving public policy or societal impact
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- Always explore compromise in civil-flavour disputes - it can lead to quashing of proceedings
- File affidavits from both parties to record the compromise formally
- Argue oppression and injustice - highlight how continuation of proceedings would prejudice the accused
- Distinguish precedents - show why the case is not heinous or involves public policy
- Rely on Parbatbhai Aahir - this judgment is the leading authority on quashing based on compromise
