High Court Exercises Inherent Powers to Quash Non-Compoundable Criminal Proceedings Based on Voluntary Amicable Settlement

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.] seeking the quashment of FIR Crime No. 13/2020 registered at Police Station Dabra Dehat for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294, 326, and 34 of the IPC.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties filed interlocutory applications stating they had resolved their dispute and entered into a voluntary compromise.

Following a court order dated 09.01.2026, the Principal Registrar verified the factum of compromise and reported that the settlement was reached without threat, inducement, or coercion.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a private settlement between the parties to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS (Inherent powers of the High Court) and referred to the principles governing Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

It relied on *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab* (2012) 10 SCC 303, which distinguished between "compounding" under Section 320 and "quashing" under inherent powers.

It relied on *State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan* (2019) 5 SCC 688, which established that proceedings for non-compoundable offences can be quashed if they are predominantly civil, matrimonial, or commercial in nature and do not involve heinous crimes like murder or rape.

Additional precedents included *K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana* (2024) 10 SCC 384 and *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab* (2014) 6 SCC 466, affirming that quashing saves judicial time when a conviction is unlikely due to compromise.

The Court analyzed the settlement through the lens of established judicial guidelines, noting that while Section 320 Cr.P.C. limits compounding to specific offences, the High Court’s inherent power is wide enough to quash non-compoundable cases to "secure the ends of justice".

The Court observed that since the parties had voluntarily resolved their dispute, continuing the prosecution would be a "futile exercise".

It reasoned that because the victim no longer intended to pursue the matter, the probability of conviction was remote, and maintaining the case would result in a wasteful exercise of judicial resources and an abuse of the legal process.

The Court ensured that the offences in question did not fall into the "heinous" category (such as mental depravity or murder) which would otherwise bar quashing despite a settlement.

The Court allowed the petition, quashing FIR Crime No. 13/2020 and all consequential proceedings flowing therefrom.

No order as to costs was made.