The established legal principle that a High Court possesses the authority to terminate criminal proceedings, even those involving offences traditionally considered non-compoundable, when parties have reached a mutually agreeable resolution, is firmly grounded in legal precedent. The landmark Supreme Court case of Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (2014) 9 SCC 653 solidified this concept, setting a crucial precedent.

This ruling unequivocally affirmed the High Court's inherent power, as defined under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to quash criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offence. This power is invoked when it becomes clear that continuing the prosecution would be futile and serve no legitimate purpose, ultimately upholding the fairness and efficiency of the criminal justice system by avoiding needless litigation.

Section 528 of the BNSS acts as a vital safeguard, granting the High Court the power to issue any orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the judicial process or secure the ends of justice. This provision serves as a crucial mechanism against unnecessary prosecution, especially in situations where the complainant and the accused have reached a consensual settlement. While Section 359 BNSS explicitly allows for the compounding of certain offences, the Yogendra Yadav judgment clarifies that a High Court's inherent powers extend beyond these limitations, giving them the flexibility to respond to specific circumstances.

However, the Supreme Court, while establishing these powers, also meticulously defined their boundaries. It emphasized that the High Court should not exercise this discretionary power in cases involving grave offences that have a significant detrimental impact on society. This category includes crimes exhibiting moral turpitude, such as rape, murder, and corruption, which are not solely private matters between the parties involved. Compromise in such cases cannot justify quashing proceedings as it undermines the social fabric. Allowing such cases to be dismissed simply due to a settlement would create a dangerous precedent, potentially eroding public trust in the justice system.

In light of these established principles, it is crucial to examine how this reasoning applies to cases arising under Section 18 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020. This provision criminalizes the offence against transgender persons. While classified as a non-compoundable offence, situations may arise where prosecution becomes unnecessary due to a settlement reached between the parties. If all parties involved, including the original complainant, agree to a mutually acceptable solution, there should be compelling justification to continue a legal battle solely based on technicalities.

Drawing on the ratio decidendi (reasoning behind the decision) of the Yogendra Yadav case, a High Court can, under truly exceptional situations, quash criminal proceedings under Section 18 of the TPPR Act, 2019, when the parties have amicably settled their dispute. This approach becomes particularly relevant when the case doesn't substantially affect public policy, no coercion or fraud was involved in the settlement and continuing the prosecution would merely inflict a punitive outcome instead of a restorative or deterrent one. However, the courts must be exceptionally cautious when applying this principle to ensure that the larger public interest is always given paramount consideration.

It is vital to remember that the power to quash criminal proceedings is discretionary and must be exercised with utmost judicial prudence. Courts must meticulously assess each case for quashing based on several factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the settlement, and whether the compromise was truly voluntary. In cases involving financial or commercial disputes, where the primary party is satisfied with the resolution, courts are more likely to quash proceedings to prevent undue hardship to the accused.

The judiciary has consistently emphasized that criminal law should not be used as a tool for revenge or personal vendettas. If the complainant and the accused have reached a genuine settlement, and no significant public interest is at risk, forcing a full trial would only impose unnecessary burdens on the legal system. The core purpose of the criminal justice system is not merely to punish but also to reform, reconcile, and restore harmony. Therefore, in instances where an amicable settlement does not pose a threat to the legal framework or public confidence in the justice system, quashing of proceedings constitutes a sensible option.

The Supreme Court has, in various landmark rulings, underscored the importance of ensuring that the criminal justice system doesn't become an instrument of harassment or oppression. In situations where the underlying dispute has been resolved and the complainant no longer seeks prosecution, forcing the continuation of legal proceedings could be seen as an abuse of process. This perspective aligns perfectly with the principle that legal proceedings should serve to deliver justice, rather than becoming an obstacle to social harmony.

However, while acknowledging this discretionary power, courts must exercise considerable caution. There is always the possibility that powerful individuals might exploit settlements to evade responsibility for serious crimes. Therefore, careful judicial oversight is essential to differentiate between genuine compromises and those achieved through coercion, intimidation, or even monetary incentives. The courts must ensure that justice is never compromised for the sake of expediency or convenience.

In conclusion, the Yogendra Yadav judgment serves as a vital precedent, reaffirming the High Court's inherent power to quash non-compoundable criminal cases where parties have effectively resolved their disputes amicably. While this principle can be extended to cases under Section 18 of the TPPR Act, 2019, it is imperative that every case is assessed on its own unique merits. This ensures that justice is not only done but, more importantly, is seen to be done by the public at large. The judicial system must maintain a carefully calibrated equilibrium between strict legal interpretation and the pragmatic pursuit of justice, ensuring that the overarching principles of fairness, equity, and social harmony always prevail.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565