Inherent power under Section 528 BNSS permits quashing of cross-FIRs settled privately.

The connected petitions arose from cross-FIRs registered at Police Station Neb Sarai following a scuffle between neighbouring parties. FIR No. 435/2021, dated 09.10.2021, was registered under Sections 323/325/341/34 IPC, while FIR No. 434/2021, dated 09.10.2021, was registered under Sections 308/34 IPC.

Chargesheets had been filed in both matters. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a written Settlement/Compromise Deed dated 02.05.2026 and agreed to withdraw the pending proceedings.

The parties appeared personally before the Court, were identified by counsel and the Investigating Officer, and confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and free from force, fear, threat or coercion. They also stated that they had no objection to quashing of the FIRs.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the cross-FIRs and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of a voluntary settlement between the parties.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose where the dispute was private in nature and did not involve any public interest.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to pass orders necessary to give effect to the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of court, or secure the ends of justice.

The Court recognised that, in appropriate cases involving essentially private disputes, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of a genuine and voluntary compromise, particularly where the parties have settled the dispute, have no objection to quashing, and continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose or implicate any overriding public interest.

The Court found that the FIRs arose out of the same neighbourhood altercation and constituted cross-cases between the parties.

The written compromise, the personal presence of the parties, their identification, and their unequivocal confirmation that the settlement was voluntary established the genuineness of the compromise.

Since the dispute was primarily personal and did not involve a matter of public interest, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecutions despite the settlement would serve no useful purpose. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court therefore considered quashing necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The petitions were accordingly allowed and disposed of. The parties were directed to adhere to the terms of the settlement, and the original affidavits were directed to be submitted before the Trial Court and to the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer within four weeks.