Inherent jurisdiction permits quashing non-compoundable proceedings after settlement where conviction is remote and dispute private.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR/Case Crime No. 383 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 106(1), 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

The prosecution case was that the petitioner, while driving a tractor-trolley rashly and negligently, hit the complainant’s son, who sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner and the complainant/respondent no. 3 entered into a voluntary settlement and filed a compounding application supported by affidavits, stating that the compromise was without coercion, pressure, inducement or undue influence.

The State opposed quashing on the ground that Section 106(1) BNS was not compoundable under the applicable statutory provisions.

1. Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution on the basis of a settlement, notwithstanding that the offence under Section 106(1) BNS was not statutorily compoundable?

2. Whether, in view of the voluntary settlement and the nature of the occurrence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law?

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to consider quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

It distinguished statutory compounding from the High Court’s separate power to quash criminal proceedings in an appropriate case, even where the offence is non-compoundable.

The Court applied the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement where the dispute is essentially private, the possibility of conviction is remote or bleak, and continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process or cause unnecessary oppression and prejudice.

The substantive allegations concerned offences under Sections 106(1), 125(b) and 281 BNS.

Although the State correctly contended that Section 106(1) BNS was not compoundable, the Court held that non-compoundability did not prevent the exercise of its distinct constitutional jurisdiction to quash proceedings.

The Court considered the FIR, the compounding application and the supporting affidavits, and found that the settlement was voluntary and that the complainant no longer wished to prosecute.

Having regard to the fact that the case arose from an unfortunate accident, the parties’ settlement, the stand of respondent no. 3, and the overall circumstances, the Court assessed the likelihood of conviction as remote and bleak.

It therefore concluded that continuation of the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose, cause unnecessary harassment and prejudice to the petitioner, and amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It allowed the writ petition and quashed FIR/Case Crime No. 383 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 106(1), 125(b) and 281 BNS, together with all proceedings arising from it.

The compounding application was consequently disposed of.