A settlement does not justify quashing an attempt-to-murder case supported by grievous stab injuries.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 577/2024, registered under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on the basis of a settlement with the complainant, respondent no. 2.

The FIR alleged that the petitioner attacked the complainant with a vegetable-cutting knife, causing three stab wounds to the chest and abdomen; the injuries were assessed as grievous, and the complainant underwent emergency surgery and remained hospitalised for six days.

The knife was recovered at the petitioner’s instance.

A chargesheet had been filed, and the trial was at the prosecution-evidence stage, with two of thirteen witnesses examined.

1. Whether the FIR and ensuing proceedings under Section 109(1) BNS could be quashed under Section 528 BNSS because the petitioner and complainant had settled the dispute.

2. Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged attack and the material collected during investigation made the case unsuitable for quashing despite the settlement.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised with regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Under State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, offences under Section 307 IPC—treated by the Court as corresponding to Section 109(1) BNS—are generally serious offences against society and cannot be quashed merely because the parties have compromised.

However, the High Court may assess the injuries, whether vital parts were affected, the weapon used, and the evidence collected after investigation; the section’s mere inclusion in the FIR is not conclusive.

The Court also considered the application of these principles in Mukhtiyaar Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4428, and Rahul v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1894.

The Court found that Section 109(1) BNS was not invoked merely for the sake of it: the complainant sustained three stab wounds, including penetrating injuries to the chest and abdomen, and the injuries were grievous; he required emergency surgery and a six-day hospital stay.

The knife was recovered at the petitioner’s instance, and the trial had progressed to prosecution evidence.

Applying Laxmi Narayan, the Court concluded that the weapon, repeated wounds, injury severity and supporting material demonstrated a serious offence with implications for societal well-being and public safety; the private settlement did not justify quashing.

The pending application was also disposed of, and the trial proceedings were directed to continue.