High Court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings on voluntary compromise where continuation serves no purpose.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 327/2012 registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 327, 427, 506, 336 and 329 of the IPC, along with consequential proceedings in S.T. No. 09/2014, on the basis of a compromise with respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

The parties filed compromise applications, supported by affidavits, stating that they had voluntarily settled the dispute.

The Principal Registrar verified the parties, their signatures, the contents of the applications and the voluntariness of the compromise, finding no threat, inducement or coercion.

The State opposed the petition, while the complainants supported the compromise and the petitioner’s request for quashing.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties?

Whether continuation of the criminal trial against the petitioner would serve any useful purpose after the complainants and the petitioner had amicably settled the dispute?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS—also referring to the corresponding power under Section 482 of the CrPC—to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 1968; Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969; Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641.

These authorities recognise that, in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise where continuation of the prosecution would be futile and would not advance the ends of justice.

The Court found that the compromise was genuine and voluntary because it had been verified by the Principal Registrar and supported by the parties’ affidavits.

Although the offences alleged were not ordinarily compoundable, the Court applied the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in compromise cases and considered whether continuation of the trial would serve any meaningful purpose.

In view of the settlement between the petitioner and the complainants, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be futile and would amount to an abuse or wasteful exercise of the criminal process.

The compromise applications were therefore allowed, while the relief was confined to the present petitioner.

The FIR in Crime No. 327/2012, registered at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior, and the consequential proceedings in S.T. No. 09/2014 were quashed solely with respect to the petitioner on the basis of the compromise.

The compromise applications were allowed and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

The Court clarified that the trial against the remaining co-accused would continue and would be decided independently in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order passed in favour of the petitioner.