Criminal proceedings for stalking and sexual harassment may be quashed after voluntary settlement where justice so requires.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner, a colleague, repeatedly stalked and contacted her despite her refusal, followed her at and outside work, visited her residence, obstructed her, and on some occasions touched her inappropriately and used abusive language.

FIR No. 0038/2022 was registered under Sections 354A, 354D and 509 IPC, followed by a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet.

The parties later settled through a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18 August 2026, under which the petitioner issued an unconditional apology.

The complainant confirmed the settlement was voluntary and stated that she had no objection to quashing the FIR; the State also had no objection.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provides for the High Court’s inherent powers.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, which recognises that criminal proceedings may be quashed following a settlement where continuing them would be unfair, contrary to the interests of justice, or an abuse of process, and quashing would secure the ends of justice.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 354A, 354D and 509 IPC.

The Court noted that the dispute had been amicably resolved, the complainant confirmed that her consent was free from force, fear or coercion, and both she and the State did not oppose quashing.

Applying the Gian Singh principle, the Court concluded that, in the circumstances, ending the proceedings would serve the interests of justice.

The judgment identifies the police station as South Avenue in its account of the FIR but refers to Bharat Nagar in the operative quashing order.