Criminal proceedings arising from private disputes may be quashed after settlement where conviction is unlikely.

The petitioner, a director of a travel agency, was named in an FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and conspiracy after respondent no. 2’s family’s Dubai trip was cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic and the payments were not refunded.

The FIR was registered under Sections 406/120B/34 IPC, and a chargesheet was later filed against the petitioner and two others.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS. The petitioner, respondent no. 2, and the family members who had made the payments entered into a settlement; the agreed amounts were paid, and respondent no. 2 confirmed the settlement was voluntary and that he did not wish to pursue the case.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 406/120B/34 IPC should be quashed qua the petitioner in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether the nature of the dispute and the settlement justified exercising the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court may quash even non-compoundable offences after settlement where continuation of proceedings would be futile and justice warrants their termination.

Under Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court must assess the nature and gravity of the offence, whether the dispute is predominantly civil or private, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation would cause oppression or prejudice; serious offences with substantial public impact are generally not to be quashed on settlement alone.

The Court treated the dispute as private in nature and noted that the settlement had been reached voluntarily, the agreed payments had been received, and respondent no. 2 did not wish to continue the matter.

In those circumstances, it considered the likelihood of conviction remote and concluded that continuing the proceedings would be an empty formality that would needlessly consume judicial and public resources.

The State had no serious objection to quashing.

FIR No. 35/2021 and all proceedings arising from it were quashed qua the petitioner, Gaurav Kalyan; the parties remained bound by the settlement memorandum.