High Court may quash non-heinous private-dispute proceedings after settlement where conviction is remote.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash Chanho P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026, the connected G.R. Case No. 1317 of 2026, and the cognizance order dated 16 May 2026.

The case was registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109/352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; a charge-sheet had been submitted against petitioner nos. 1 to 4.

The informant, who was also the injured victim’s mother, and the petitioners filed affidavits stating that the parties had settled the dispute voluntarily, without pressure or coercion, and that the FIR had been lodged on mistaken facts.

The State did not oppose quashing in view of the settlement.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the prospects of conviction justified quashing the proceedings despite the offences being non-compoundable.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including in non-compoundable cases, to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; the power must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Under Narinder Singh, proceedings involving heinous or serious offences ordinarily should not be quashed merely because of a settlement, while the court may consider the offence’s nature, the evidence and injury, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement may restore harmony between the parties.

The Court treated the dispute as private, finding that no public policy was implicated and that the offences were not heinous or of serious mental depravity.

It relied on the parties’ complete settlement and the affidavits supporting its voluntariness, and concluded that the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak. It further held that continuing the proceedings would cause the petitioners oppression, prejudice and injustice.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court therefore considered quashing appropriate.

The connected interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.