Court’s Decision
The Sikkim High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR, chargesheet, and all criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong, in a case arising out of a land dispute between neighbours. The Court held that offences arising from civil disputes with private nature, when settled amicably, warrant quashing to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the court process, even if some offences are non-compoundable under the Penal Code.
Facts
The matter arose from a neighbourhood land dispute where an FIR was lodged on 16 August 2022, alleging that some petitioners, including their domestic help, broke a boundary wall and assaulted the complainants on 13 August 2022. The police registered the case under Sections 447, 323, 354, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and, upon investigation, filed a chargesheet under Sections 442, 448, 452, 351, 354, 120B, and 34 IPC against Petitioner No.1, and under similar provisions for the other petitioners. Meanwhile, the parties settled the civil land dispute amicably in two title suits by executing compromise deeds, leading to decrees on 1 February 2025. Subsequently, they executed a settlement deed on 4 February 2025 agreeing not to pursue the criminal matter further, seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings to maintain peace in the neighbourhood.
Issues
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash criminal proceedings in a case arising from a neighbourhood land dispute where parties have settled the matter amicably.
- Whether the filing under Section 528 BNSS was proper or the petition should have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the FIR was lodged before the BNSS came into force.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the FIR arose from a private neighbourhood land dispute that has been amicably settled, and continuing the criminal proceedings would only cause harassment and disturb the peace in the community. They requested the High Court to quash the FIR and the criminal case pending before the Magistrate to secure the ends of justice, citing that although some offences are non-compoundable, the dispute has a civil character and should not proceed further in a criminal court.
Respondent’s Arguments
The state did not object to the quashing, acknowledging that the dispute arose from a private neighbourhood land issue that has been amicably settled. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor questioned the maintainability of the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing it should have been filed under Section 482 of the CrPC as the FIR predated the BNSS.
Analysis of the Law
The court examined Section 531 of the BNSS, which saves the application of the CrPC for cases pending before 1 July 2024, and Section 4(2) of the BNSS, which requires offences under other laws to be tried under the same provisions of the BNSS. It concluded that since the present petition was filed after the BNSS came into force, Section 528 of the BNSS would apply and the petition was properly filed under the new law. The court further analysed the scope of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, which mirrors Section 482 CrPC, allowing the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.
Precedent Analysis
The court relied on:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012): Holding that criminal proceedings arising from disputes of a civil nature can be quashed when the parties have settled the matter amicably, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
- K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024): Reiterating that disputes predominantly civil in nature, when settled, justify quashing criminal proceedings.
- Prince v. State of NCT Delhi (2024) and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments (2024): Interpreting Sections 4 and 531 of the BNSS to clarify that petitions filed after 1 July 2024 should be under the BNSS.
These precedents established that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in cases of private disputes settled amicably to prevent abuse of court process.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that:
- The offences arose out of a land dispute between neighbours, essentially a civil dispute.
- The parties settled the dispute amicably through decrees in the civil courts and a settlement agreement, agreeing not to pursue the criminal case.
- The dispute did not involve heinous offences or offences against society at large, but private parties, making it suitable for quashing under inherent powers.
- The correct provision for filing was Section 528 BNSS due to the timing of the petition, and the High Court’s powers remained the same under the new provision.
Conclusion
The Sikkim High Court quashed the FIR dated 16 August 2022 and all proceedings in the related criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakyong. The criminal miscellaneous case was disposed of, and all pending applications stood disposed of accordingly, bringing closure to the dispute while upholding the peace in the community.
Implications
- Clarifies that disputes arising from civil or neighbourhood disputes, when settled, can lead to quashing of related criminal cases.
- Reinforces the High Court’s power under Section 528 BNSS for quashing proceedings to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice.
- Establishes practical guidance for applying the BNSS post-implementation in criminal matters linked with civil disputes.
Brief on Cases Referred
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012): Held that High Courts can quash non-compoundable offences arising from civil disputes when parties have settled, to secure justice.
- K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024): Reiterated the power to quash criminal proceedings for disputes of a civil nature when amicably settled.
- Prince v. State of NCT Delhi (2024): Clarified that petitions post-implementation of BNSS should be filed under BNSS, not CrPC.
These cases guided the High Court in exercising its powers to quash the proceedings in this matter.
FAQs
1. Can criminal proceedings arising from a land dispute be quashed if settled between parties?
Yes, if the dispute is private and civil in nature, settled amicably, and does not involve serious offences against society, the High Court can quash proceedings.
2. Does the new BNSS allow the High Court to exercise inherent powers like the old CrPC?
Yes, Section 528 of the BNSS mirrors Section 482 of the CrPC, allowing the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
3. Why was the filing under Section 528 BNSS correct despite the FIR being filed earlier?
Since the petition was filed after the BNSS came into force, the correct procedure was under Section 528 BNSS, which governs proceedings filed post-implementation.