High Courts may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings where settlement makes conviction remote.

The case arose from cross-FIRs following an altercation between the applicants and the complainant/respondents during Holi on 14 March 2025.

The parties lived in the same locality and later settled their dispute.

The applicants sought to set aside the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order, and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 234 of 2026, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh.

The parties appeared before the High Court, filed affidavits recording the compromise, and confirmed during the Court’s interaction that the complainants did not wish to pursue the proceedings.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed in light of the parties’ compromise, although the offences were stated to be non-compoundable

2. Whether the compromise between the parties justified quashing the proceedings against the applicants

The Court relied on B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and the principle it attributed to that decision that the High Court may permit resolution of non-compoundable offences in appropriate cases.

It also invoked the broader principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a settlement makes conviction remote and continuation of the proceedings would cause prejudice or injustice to the accused.

The Court considered the parties’ affidavits and their statements during its interaction, which confirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and the complainants did not wish to continue the prosecution.

Although the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the Court applied the compromise-based quashing principles it drew from B.S. Joshi and subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

It concluded that the settlement warranted ending the proceedings, without setting out a separate, offence-specific assessment.

The criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.