Inherent jurisdiction permits quashing personal, non-compoundable offences after genuine compromise and remote conviction.

The petitioners, Inderjit Kaur and Kamaljeet @ Kamal Singh, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 164/2021 registered at Police Station Poonch under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC read with Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act, along with the consequential chargesheet pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch.

During the proceedings, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 stated that they had amicably compromised the dispute, and their statements supporting the compromise were recorded by the Registrar Judicial.

The Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents raised no serious objection, submitting that the offences were personal in nature and arose inter se the parties.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the complainant?

Whether continuation of the prosecution, in respect of offences of a personal nature having no public overtones, would amount to an abuse of the process of the court when the parties had amicably settled the dispute?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, for the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in view of a settlement, the likelihood of conviction is remote and continuation of the proceedings would defeat the ends of justice.

It further relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, which recognises that proceedings arising from disputes of a predominantly private nature may be quashed after compromise, particularly where the chances of conviction are minimal.

The Court also referred to Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., (2025) 4 SCC 78, for the proposition that continuing a futile prosecution after an amicable settlement may constitute an abuse of process.

The Court found that the offences alleged under Sections 323, 341 and 506 IPC and Sections 4/25 of the Indian Arms Act were personal in nature and did not involve public ramifications.

The complainant and the accused had voluntarily entered into a compromise, supported by statements recorded before the Registrar Judicial.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Naushey Ali, the Court concluded that the complainant’s unwillingness to pursue the dispute substantially reduced the possibility of a successful prosecution and conviction.

Requiring the parties to undergo a full trial in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

It held that continuation of the criminal proceedings, after the parties had amicably settled their personal dispute, would be an abuse of the process of the court and that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, FIR No. 164/2021 dated 7 July 2021 and the consequential chargesheet titled State v. Kamaljeet Singh & Anr., pending before the Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, were quashed.

The connected application was also disposed of.