A Genuine Settlement May Justify Quashing Non-Compoundable Proceedings in a Predominantly Private Dispute.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 51 of 2026, registered at Police Station Nanakmatta under Section 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and protection from arrest.

The FIR alleged that a country-made pistol discharged during a marriage ceremony, causing injury to respondent no. 3.

The petitioner claimed the discharge was accidental and stated that the parties, who were related, had no prior enmity.

During the proceedings, the petitioner and the injured respondent filed a joint compounding application; respondent no. 3 confirmed in person that the settlement was voluntary and that he did not object to quashing.

The State opposed the application, noting that the Arms Act offence was non-compoundable.

1. Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential proceedings, including those involving a non-compoundable Arms Act offence, on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve a useful purpose or amount to an abuse of process.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution and the inherent jurisdiction referred to by the Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court may quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private or personal, the settlement is genuine and voluntary, and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose or amount to an abuse of process.

Non-compoundability alone does not bar that exercise; the Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the alleged occurrence, the relationship between the parties, and the genuineness of the settlement.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

The Court accepted that respondent no. 3 had freely and voluntarily settled the dispute and did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

Considering the allegations, the parties’ relationship, and the settlement, the Court concluded that the compromise was genuine and that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

It therefore granted relief notwithstanding the State’s objection that the Arms Act offence was non-compoundable.

It accordingly allowed the criminal writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.