Genuine settlement may justify quashing non-compoundable proceedings where conviction is remote.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 815/2024 arising from Crime No. 66/2024, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioners wrongfully restrained and assaulted him, including with an iron rod, and threatened him

During the petition, the parties filed a compromise application and affidavits stating that they had resolved their dispute voluntarily, without coercion, and that the complainant had no objection to quashing the proceedings

The Court considered the settlement and the circumstances of the case

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the non-compoundable criminal proceedings in light of the parties’ compromise

2. Whether, considering the settlement and the circumstances alleged, continuation of the prosecution would serve the interests of justice or instead amount to an abuse of process

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences; that power is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC (Section 359 BNSS) and must be exercised sparingly to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offence, whether the dispute is predominantly private, the likelihood of conviction, prejudice from continuing the prosecution, and the stage of proceedings

The Court found that the dispute had been settled voluntarily with the intervention of village elders, and that the parties were residents of the same village and close neighbours

Although the complaint alleged an assault causing a bleeding head injury, the Court considered the settlement and the limited prospect of witnesses supporting the prosecution, concluding that the chances of conviction were remote and continuation of the proceedings would be unnecessary

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, it held that quashing would be appropriate in the circumstances

The compromise application was allowed, and pending applications were disposed of