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

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash FIR No. 124/2024 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, Gwalior.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 294, 336, and 201 of the IPC.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (the complainant) filed applications stating they had reached a voluntary settlement.

The Principal Registrar of the High Court verified the compromise and submitted a report confirming that the parties entered into the settlement without threat, inducement, or coercion.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a private settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the continuation of prosecution in the present matter would constitute an abuse of the process of law given the amicable resolution between the parties.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which distinguished between compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and quashing under inherent powers, holding that the latter is permissible even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is private or matrimonial in nature.

The court further cited State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, establishing that while "heinous and serious offences" like murder or rape cannot be quashed, disputes with a "predominantly civil character" or personal nature can be settled.

This principle was reaffirmed in K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana.

This principle was reaffirmed in Daxaben v. State of Gujarat.

The Court examined the nature of the allegations under Sections 294, 336, and 201 of the IPC alongside the factum of the compromise verified by the Principal Registrar.

Applying the principles from Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, the Court reasoned that since the parties had voluntarily resolved their dispute and the offences did not fall under the category of heinous crimes against society, the dispute was essentially private in nature.

The Court determined that because the complainant no longer intended to pursue the matter, the possibility of conviction was remote; thus, continuing the prosecution would be a "futile exercise" and a waste of judicial time.

The petition was allowed, and the Court ordered the quashment of FIR No. 124/2024 and all consequential proceedings initiated therefrom against the petitioner.

No order as to costs was made.