High Court Exercises Inherent Powers to Quash Non-Compoundable Penal and SC/ST Act Proceedings Based on Voluntary Compromise

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking the quashment of FIR Crime No. 209/2025 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 132, 121(1), 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

During the proceedings, the parties filed applications (I.A. Nos. 3872/2026 and 3873/2026) stating they had resolved their dispute through a voluntary compromise.

The factum of compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on February 25, 2026, who reported that the settlement was reached without threat 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 an amicable settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the continuation of prosecution would serve any purpose given the voluntary compromise in a matter primarily private in nature.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which established that quashing proceedings over a settlement is distinct from compounding under Section 320 and is permissible for non-compoundable offences to secure the ends of justice.

The court also invoked the principles from State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), which held that while “heinous” crimes cannot be quashed, matters with an overwhelmingly civil flavour or private nature can be.

K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024), reaffirming that settlement in family or matrimonial disputes justifies quashing even if the offences are non-compoundable.

The Court examined the verification report from the Principal Registrar, which confirmed that the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners had entered into a compromise voluntarily.

Applying the precedents of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court observed that the inherent power to quash is broader than the power to compound under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

Although the FIR included provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Court determined that because the parties had amicably resolved the issue, the continuance of the prosecution would be a "futile exercise" and a waste of judicial time.

The Court found that the dispute did not fall under the category of "heinous and serious offences of mental depravity" that would preclude the use of inherent powers.

The Court held that to prevent the abuse of the process of law, the criminal case must be closed following the settlement.

Specifically, the Court ordered that the complainant must return any compensation amount received under the SC/ST Act in accordance with applicable guidelines.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.