A non-compoundable stalking FIR may be quashed on settlement in exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 0139/2020, registered under Sections 354-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The FIR alleged that, over approximately two months in 2020, the petitioner repeatedly called the complainant, a married woman, from different numbers, sought physical relations, and threatened to kill her and her husband and to rape her.

The petitioner was arrested on 13 May 2020 and released on bail.

The parties, who were related, entered into a settlement dated 2 June 2026. The complainant filed a no-objection affidavit and confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 354-D and 506 IPC on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the prosecution would be futile and quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice.

Section 528 BNSS confers inherent power on the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that power may be used to quash non-compoundable proceedings following settlement where, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case, conviction is unlikely and continuation would defeat the ends of justice; serious offences or offences with substantial public impact ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on settlement.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, directs the High Court to consider whether the possibility of conviction is remote and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court also relied on Veer Singh v. State NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C. 5897/2025, and referred to Jazib Jafri v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5889, and Vimalesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4047, concerning quashing of similar allegations on settlement.

Although the Court recognised that offences involving allegations under Section 354 IPC are ordinarily outside the scope of private settlement, it considered the particular circumstances: the allegations concerned phone calls and verbal threats without physical assault; the parties were related; more than six years had elapsed since registration of the FIR; and the complainant, a principal witness, had voluntarily settled and did not wish to proceed.

In light of those circumstances, the Court concluded that the prospect of conviction was remote and that continuation of the trial would be futile.

It directed the petitioner to deposit ₹15,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks and to file proof of payment in the Registry; the petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.