High Courts may quash non-compoundable proceedings over civil property disputes upon settlement.

Respondent No. 2 claimed ownership of an 80-square-yard portion of a plot in Harsh Vihar and alleged that petitioner No. 1 and his associates constructed a wall on it, forged property documents, and threatened him.

FIR No. 0330/2025 was registered under provisions of the BNS, and petitioner No. 1 had also filed a civil suit concerning the property.

The parties later executed a settlement agreement: petitioner No. 1 agreed to remove the construction, pay ₹3 lakh, withdraw the civil suit, and relinquish any claim to the property.

The petitioners stated that they had paid the amount and withdrawn the suit; respondent No. 2 confirmed receipt of the money and peaceful possession of the property, and did not wish to pursue the matter.

The State also had no objection to quashing the FIR, though it sought costs for the investigative time spent.

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS in view of the parties’ settlement.

Whether the settlement and surrounding circumstances justified quashing the proceedings, and whether costs should be imposed.

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) empower the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including for non-compoundable offences, where doing so serves the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process; this power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised sparingly, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and its societal impact.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, permits quashing where a dispute is predominantly private or civil in character, the parties have settled, and continuation would be futile or defeat justice, while excluding serious offences with substantial public impact.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, requires consideration of the ends of justice, the character of the offence, and whether conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court also cited Deepak Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, for the case-specific assessment of the offence’s nature, gravity, and social impact.

The Court found that the parties had fully resolved their dispute over the property: the agreed payment had been made, the complainant was in peaceful possession, and the civil suit had been withdrawn.

Although some alleged offences were non-compoundable, the Court treated the dispute as settled between the parties and concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would be contrary to the interests of justice; the State did not oppose quashing.

In view of the investigative effort expended, the Court accepted the State’s request for costs.

It directed the petitioners to deposit ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within one week, and disposed of the petition.

The operative paragraph identifies Section 329(2), whereas the petition’s opening identifies Section 392(2); the judgment contains this apparent inconsistency.