Criminal Proceedings Quashed Under Inherent Jurisdiction Following Amicable Settlement of Personal Disputes Involving Non-Heinous Offences.

The applicants sought the quashing of a charge-sheet and summoning orders dated 04.11.2025 and 04.12.2025 in Criminal Case No. 1146 of 2025, pending before the ACJM, Narendra Nagar

The case originated from an F.I.R. dated 22.10.2024, alleging that the applicants assaulted the complainant and others with sticks and stones, causing injuries that required treatment at AIIMS, Rishikesh

During the proceedings, the first informant passed away due to causes unrelated to the incident

Subsequently, the applicants and the injured persons (respondent nos. 2 and 3) entered into a voluntary compromise with the intervention of society members and filed a joint compounding application

The injured persons appeared before the High Court to affirm the settlement and express their lack of objection to quashing the proceedings

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences under the B.N.S. on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

The Court applied the inherent powers of the High Court (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C., now corresponding provisions under the B.N.S.S.) to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which permits quashing non-compoundable offences of a private/personal nature that do not have a serious societal impact

It further integrated principles from Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) regarding the remote possibility of conviction following a settlement

State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) regarding the exclusion of heinous crimes from such relief

Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) regarding the prevention of the abuse of the process of law

The Court observed that the dispute was predominantly personal and had been resolved voluntarily without coercion

By interacting with the injured persons, the Court verified the factum of the compromise and their desire to drop the charges

The Court reasoned that because the parties had settled, the likelihood of the prosecution's success was "remote and bleak"

Since the offences alleged under various sections of the B.N.S. (including 115(2), 117, and 191(2)) in this specific context did not possess a grave societal impact or qualify as heinous crimes, the Court determined that continuing the trial would cause "unnecessary harassment" and constitute an abuse of the judicial process

The High Court held that quashing the proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice given the amicable settlement

Consequently, the Court quashed the charge-sheet, the summoning orders dated 04.11.2025 and 04.12.2025, and the entire criminal proceedings in Case No. 1146 of 2025 under the B.N.S.