Inherent jurisdiction may quash cross-cases between neighbours after voluntary settlement in exceptional circumstances.

The petitions concerned cross-cases arising from a confrontation between neighbouring families on 8 February 2025. Priya alleged that Shivraj abused and threatened her; Namanashree alleged that Priya assaulted her and used caste-related abusive words.

The cases proceeded as S.C. No. 72/2025, involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Spl.C. No. 30/2025, involving BNS offences and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After charge sheets were filed, the parties settled, stated that they had no surviving grievance, and undertook to live peacefully as neighbours. They sought quashing of the respective proceedings under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings in both cross-cases on the basis of the parties’ settlement, notwithstanding the seriousness and nature of the alleged offences.

2. Whether, in the particular circumstances—including the common neighbourhood dispute, cross-cases, and the parties’ continuing proximity—the settlement made continuation of the proceedings unnecessary to serve the ends of justice.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to consider whether continuation of criminal proceedings would serve the ends of justice.

The Court observed that the jurisdiction is not confined to whether the offences are compoundable, but that settlement does not, by itself, justify quashing—particularly where serious offences are alleged, including offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

No judicial precedents were cited in the order.

The Court treated the cases as cross-proceedings arising from the same neighbourhood dispute, rather than unrelated transactions, and noted that both sides had voluntarily resolved their differences and expressed a clear intention to live peacefully as neighbours.

Although the allegations—including those under the SC/ST Act—were serious and settlement alone would not ordinarily warrant termination, the Court found the combination of cross-cases, a shared factual origin, no indicated continuing dispute, and the parties’ ongoing proximity to be exceptional.

It concluded that continuation would serve little purpose and risk perpetuating the very conflict the parties had resolved.

It confined the decision to the peculiar facts of the case, clarified that it did not establish a general rule permitting quashing of such offences on settlement, and cautioned that the indulgence was one-off and would not be extended if similar conduct recurred.