High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings based on voluntary compromise.

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to quash FIR Crime No. 180/2025 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road, Gwalior.

The charges included Sections 115(2), 119(1), 126(2), 127(2), 296, 3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties filed applications (I.A. No. 12459/2025 and 12460/2025) stating they had resolved their dispute and entered into a voluntary compromise.

On February 5, 2026, the Principal Registrar verified the compromise, reporting that the settlement was reached without threat or coercion.

Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case would serve any purpose given the amicable settlement between the accused and the complainant.

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 the process of law.

It relied on the landmark principle from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which distinguishes between "compounding" under Section 320 and "quashing" under inherent powers, holding that non-compoundable cases can be quashed if they are predominantly civil or matrimonial in nature.

It further applied State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), which established that while heinous crimes (murder/rape) cannot be quashed via compromise, personal or commercial disputes can be terminated to secure the ends of justice.

The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the validity of the settlement.

It noted that the Principal Registrar had officially verified the statements of both the petitioners and Respondent No. 2, confirming the compromise was voluntary.

Applying the precedents of K. Bharthi Devi and Narinder Singh, the Court reasoned that the power to quash is wider than the power to compound and is intended to be used when a trial would be a "futile exercise".

Since the parties had resolved the issue privately and the offences were not of such a heinous nature as to affect the "mental depravity" of society at large, the Court determined that quashing the FIR was necessary to prevent wasteful judicial exercise.

Consequently, the Court allowed the MCRC, quashing FIR Crime No. 180/2025 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners.

No order as to costs was made.