FIR Quashed Under BNS 2023 Following Amicable Settlement in Non-Compoundable Offence Between Young Neighbors With No Antecedents

The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 0321/2025, registered at P.S. Mansarovar Park under Sections 110, 126(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

The FIR was based on a report by Respondent No. 2, Ankit Kumar, alleging that on August 19, 2025, the accused biological brothers and associates intercepted him and caused injuries using a pointed object.

Respondents No. 3 and 4 were also allegedly assaulted when they intervened.

Although a charge-sheet had been filed and charges framed, the parties—who are neighbors—entered into an amicable settlement via a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated April 11, 2026, to maintain peace and harmony.

The petitioners cited personal hardships, including the death of Petitioner Deepak’s mother, as context for the settlement.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under the BNS (corresponding to Section 308 IPC) on the basis of a compromise between parties.

2. Whether continuing the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose given the settlement and the remote likelihood of conviction.

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which allows for the quashing of proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

The court relied on the precedent set in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014), establishing that even non-compoundable cases can be quashed if the court is satisfied that the scope of conviction is remote and continuing the case serves no meaningful purpose.

The court also referenced several Delhi High Court precedents, including Mohd. Rashid & Ors. V. The State (2025) and Mahender Singh @ Sunny & Anr. V. The State & Ors. (2021), where proceedings involving Section 308 IPC were quashed following amicable settlements.

The Court observed that the parties reside in the same neighborhood and settled the dispute voluntarily to ensure long-term harmony.

During the proceedings, the respondents confirmed they accepted the petitioners' unconditional apologies and had no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

The Court noted that there was no monetary consideration involved and that the petitioners were young individuals with no prior criminal antecedents.

Applying the logic from Narinder Singh, the Court reasoned that because the complainants were no longer willing to support the prosecution, the possibility of conviction had become "remote and bleak".

Consequently, the Court found that the interest of justice would be better served by honoring the settlement rather than taxing the judicial system with a trial destined for acquittal.

Exercising its powers under Section 528 BNSS, the Court quashed FIR No. 0321/2025 and all consequential proceedings.

The petitioners were directed to submit original affidavits to the Trial Court within four weeks, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.