Attempt-to-murder proceedings may be quashed on settlement where the prospects of conviction are remote.

The petitioner, the sole accused, sought to quash proceedings in S.C. No. 30/2026 arising from Crime No. 96/2025 of Kalaghatagi Police Station, alleging an offence under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

During the petition, the petitioner and the de facto complainant filed a joint application seeking permission to compound the dispute and quash the proceedings, stating that they had settled voluntarily with the intervention of family elders.

The State was represented and the complainant and petitioner were present before the Court.

1. Whether the High Court could use its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process where the parties had settled and the prospect of conviction was considered remote.

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and distinguished that power from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC, corresponding to Section 359 BNSS.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court applied the principle that a High Court may quash non-compoundable proceedings on settlement where doing so serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process, but must exercise that power cautiously, particularly where the alleged offence is serious; relevant considerations include the nature of the case, the material on record, the stage of proceedings, and the likelihood of conviction.

The Court accepted that the parties had settled voluntarily, without coercion, with the assistance of elders, and intended to live peacefully.

On its review of the charge-sheet material, it considered the accused’s role unclear and found no clear indication of a direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged offence; it also assessed the likelihood of the complainant supporting the prosecution after settlement as minimal.

Applying the Narinder Singh principles, the Court concluded that the chance of conviction was remote and that continuing the proceedings would unnecessarily prolong the dispute and constitute an abuse of process.

It also allowed I.A. No. 2/2026 and disposed of any pending applications that no longer survived.