High Court may quash non-compoundable private disputes under Section 528 BNSS upon amicable settlement.

The petitioner, a medical doctor, sought the quashing of FIR No. 0152/2025 (registered on 28.09.2025 at P.S. Bari Brahmana) and the resulting charge sheet pending before the Addl. Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 74 (sexual harmlessness/modesty of woman) and 127(2) (wrongful confinement) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), filed by his clinic employee.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties executed a compromise deed to settle their private disputes.

Statements were recorded before the Registrar Judicial on 27.02.2026, wherein the complainant expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.

1. Whether criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences, specifically under Section 74 of the BNS, can be quashed by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.], which preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It relied on *Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika and another* (AIR 2012 SC 499), which held that the High Court may quash proceedings for offences under Section 354 IPC (now Section 74 BNS) despite being non-compoundable if the dispute is private.

It further applied the criteria from *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab* (AIR 2012 SC (CRI) 1796), stating that non-compoundable proceedings arising from personal disputes can be quashed provided the offences are not heinous, do not impact society at large, and do not involve moral turpitude or the State.

The Court observed that the dispute was rooted in a professional association and was "essentially personal in nature".

By referencing the complainant’s statement and the compromise deed, the Court determined there was no remaining hostility between the parties.

The Court reasoned that since the matter lacked "grave societal impact" and was not "heinous," the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Consequently, the Court found that allowing the trial to proceed after a voluntary settlement would constitute an "abuse of the process of law" as per the standards set by the Supreme Court.

It held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS remains available for quashing non-compoundable private disputes to meet the ends of justice.

The Court ordered the quashing of FIR No. 0152/2025 and all consequential proceedings, including the charge sheet pending before the Court of Addl. Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba.