High Courts may quash non-heinous, personal criminal proceedings after compromise where conviction is unlikely.

The eight petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings arising from Lohsingha P.S. Case No. 37 of 2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 2252 of 2026, including the cognizance order dated 17 August 2026.

Cognizance had been taken for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners and the informant-victim filed affidavits stating that they had amicably settled their dispute and that the informant did not wish to proceed.

The State had no objection to the quashing prayer.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash the proceedings in light of the parties’ compromise.

2. Whether the offences and circumstances of the case were such that continuation of the proceedings would be unnecessary or contrary to the ends of justice.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Applying Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which restated the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court noted that quashing on the basis of settlement depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; heinous or serious offences generally cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

By contrast, proceedings involving a predominantly private dispute may be quashed where the settlement is complete, the prospect of conviction is remote, and continuation would cause injustice or amount to abuse of process.

The Court accepted that the dispute had been amicably settled and that the informant-victim no longer wished to pursue the case.

It found that the offences involved were neither heinous nor serious offences of mental depravity, and characterised the case as having arisen from a misunderstanding between the parties.

Given the settlement, the Court considered that continuing the proceedings would cause hardship to the petitioners and found the case suitable for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

The connected interlocutory application was disposed of.