Cross-FIRs alleging Section 354 IPC may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS following genuine settlement of private disputes.

The petitions arose from cross-FIRs concerning an altercation between landlord-and-tenant families on 16 February 2018.

FIR No. 59/2018, registered at P.S. Sarita Vihar on the tenant’s complaint, alleged forcible entry, quarrelling, assault, inappropriate touching and threats by the landlady and her children, invoking Sections 354, 506, 509, 323 and 34 IPC. A cross-FIR, FIR No. 135/2018, was registered on the landlady’s complaint, alleging a dispute over non-payment of rent, abuse, threats, assault and inappropriate touching by the tenants, invoking Sections 354, 509, 323 and 34 IPC.

Charges had been framed in both cases and the matters were pending at the stage of prosecution evidence.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a mediated settlement dated 13 November 2025, tendered unconditional apologies, and agreed not to pursue the criminal cases.

The complainants appeared before the High Court, affirmed the settlement as voluntary, and stated that they had no objection to quashing the FIRs.

The tenant-accused had also vacated the premises.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the cross-FIRs and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose where the dispute was essentially private in nature and the complainants no longer wished to pursue the allegations.

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure the ends of justice and prevent continuation of proceedings where the parties have genuinely settled a predominantly private dispute.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed in appropriate cases notwithstanding that the offences alleged under Sections 354, 506, 509, 323 and 34 IPC are not being terminated through ordinary compounding, particularly where the dispute is personal, the settlement is voluntary, the complainant does not wish to proceed, and continuation of prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court verified the settlement through the personal presence of both sides, their respective counsel and the Investigating Officer. The complainants were duly identified and confirmed that the compromise had been entered into without coercion or undue influence and that they had no objection to quashing the FIRs.

Since the allegations arose from a landlord-tenant dispute, the parties had resolved their differences through mediation, the accused had vacated the premises, and no public-interest element was involved, the Court found the dispute to be essentially private.

In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution, despite the complainants’ unwillingness to pursue the cases, would serve no useful purpose. The Court therefore considered quashing appropriate to secure the ends of justice under Section 528 BNSS.

The quashing was subject to the petitioners collectively depositing costs of ₹10,000 in each petition with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Proof of deposit and the original affidavits were directed to be filed before the Trial Court within a further two weeks for incorporation into the trial record.

The petitions and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.