Genuine compromise may justify quashing non-compoundable proceedings involving predominantly private disputes.

The complainant alleged that on 10 June 2025 an Alto car driven by the applicant(s) struck a motorcycle carrying her brother and his friend, causing serious injuries to both.

An FIR was registered under Sections 125(b), 281 and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance.

The applicant sought quashing of the charge-sheet, the cognizance/summoning order dated 25 February 2026 and the pending criminal proceedings.

The parties filed a joint compromise application, and the complainant and injured persons confirmed the voluntary settlement before the Court by video conference.

The State opposed the application on the ground that some alleged offences were non-compoundable, while not disputing the compromise.

Whether the High Court could quash the criminal proceedings for alleged non-compoundable offences, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

Whether, in light of the settlement and the complainant’s and injured persons’ stated wishes, continuing the proceedings would serve a useful purpose or amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court relied on its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), holding that proceedings concerning non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private and quashing is required to prevent abuse of the court’s process and secure the ends of justice.

It cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat as setting out the principles governing quashing on the basis of compromise.

The Court found that the dispute was essentially private and that the compromise was genuine, voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.

The complainant and injured persons affirmed the settlement and said they did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

Although the State objected that some offences were non-compoundable, it did not dispute the compromise.

Applying its inherent jurisdiction and the cited principles, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would amount to an abuse of process.

The C-528 application was allowed, and any pending applications were disposed of.