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

The applicants sought the quashing of a charge-sheet and a summoning order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the ACJM, Kashipur in Criminal Case No. 778 of 2026.

The FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 alleging that on 15.02.2025, the applicants entered his residence, abused his family, issued death threats, and fired shots from a licensed firearm.

Following investigation, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 125, 351(2), and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 25(9) of the Arms Act.

Subsequently, the parties settled the dispute amicably through a joint compounding application (I.A. No. 1 of 2026), stating the compromise was voluntary and the complainant no longer wished to prosecute.

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

2. Whether the continuance of criminal proceedings in a private dispute, where a compromise has been reached and no physical injury occurred, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

The Court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), which allows for the quashing of proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the landmark precedents of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, which established that even in non-compoundable cases, the High Court may quash proceedings if the dispute is predominantly private/personal in nature and a settlement has been reached.

The Court observed that the dispute between the parties arose from personal discord and was essentially private in nature.

Upon interacting with respondent no. 2, the Court satisfied itself that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and free from coercion.

Although the State counsel noted that some offences were non-compoundable, the Court emphasized that no person sustained injuries during the incident and the firearm involved had already been seized by authorities.

The Court reasoned that because the parties are now living peacefully and the complainant does not wish to pursue the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote; therefore, allowing the trial to continue would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the judicial process.

The Court clarified that this order does not influence administrative proceedings regarding the applicants' firearm license, leaving the District Magistrate free to decide on its status independently. The C-528 application was accordingly allowed.