Exceptional comprehensive settlement justified quashing non-compoundable proceedings, including an IPC Section 313 charge.

The petitioner and respondent No. 2, former colleagues at Infosys, developed a personal relationship. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner promised to marry her after obtaining a divorce, obtained money from her on that basis, and attempted to have physical relations with her, after which she was compelled to undergo an abortion. A case was registered for offences under Sections 420, 313 and 354 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed; the petitioner sought quashing of the resulting proceedings.

During the petition, the parties filed a joint memo recording a voluntary, comprehensive settlement, including payment of ₹10,00,000 to respondent No. 2 and her agreement to withdraw other proceedings between them.

Respondent No. 2 personally confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and that she did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings following the parties’ settlement, notwithstanding the non-compoundable offences alleged, including Section 313 IPC.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuation of the prosecution would serve the ends of justice or amount to an abuse of process.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, referred to in the petition as Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It held that the non-compoundable character of an offence does not, by itself, exclude the exercise of that jurisdiction; the Court must assess the circumstances as a whole.

The Court also treated the allegation under Section 313 IPC—termination of pregnancy without the woman’s consent—as serious and one that cannot ordinarily be terminated merely because of a private settlement.

No judicial precedents are cited in the order.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the Section 313 allegation and cautioned that settlement alone would not ordinarily justify quashing such a charge.

It nevertheless found that the dispute arose from a personal relationship, the settlement covered the parties’ inter se disputes and other pending proceedings, and respondent No. 2 personally and unequivocally confirmed its voluntary nature and her wish not to proceed.

Considering these circumstances together—not merely the payment—the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would not advance the ends of justice and would amount to an abuse of process.

It expressly confined its decision to the peculiar facts of the case and stated that it did not establish a general rule permitting settlement-based quashing of Section 313 IPC allegations.

The operative order quashes the C.C. proceedings; the Court’s decision is expressly limited to the circumstances of this case.