High Court May Quash Non-Compoundable Proceedings Under Section 528 BNSS Based on Voluntary Amicable Settlement

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.] seeking the quashment of FIR No. 139/2020 registered at Police Station Seondha, District Datia.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the IPC.

During the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 52/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha, the petitioner and the complainant (Respondent No. 2) filed interlocutory applications stating they had resolved their dispute and entered into a voluntary compromise.

The factum of compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar of the High Court on 09.02.2026, who reported that the settlement was reached without threat or coercion.

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

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court.

It relied on the landmark precedents of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), which establish that High Courts may quash non-compoundable offences if they are predominantly civil or matrimonial in nature and a settlement is reached.

Additionally, the court cited State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), which clarifies that while serious/heinous crimes (e.g., murder, rape) cannot be quashed via compromise, the power can be exercised for private or commercial disputes to prevent abuse of the process of law.

The court reasoned that since the parties had amicably settled their personal dispute and the factum of compromise was verified as voluntary by the Principal Registrar, continuing the prosecution would be a "futile exercise".

The court observed that the dispute appeared to be private in nature rather than a heinous crime against society.

Following the principles laid down in K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana and Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, the court determined that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue despite the settlement would result in a wasteful exercise of judicial time and fail to serve the ends of justice.

It held that the continuance of the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law.

Consequently, the Court quashed FIR No. 139/2020 registered at Police Station Seondha and all consequential proceedings, including Criminal Appeal No. 52/2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Seondha.

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