Inherent powers permit quashing an FIR after genuine settlement, compensation, apology, and consideration of juvenile welfare.

The petitioners sought quashing of Laitumkhrah P.S. Case No. 99 of 2026, registered on 11 July 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 351(3), 324(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The allegations arose from an incident at a homestay where the petitioners allegedly exceeded the permitted occupancy, threatened the manager, damaged the room and its contents, and left the premises in an unclean and disorderly condition.

Petitioners 1–3 were arrested and released on bail, while petitioners 4–6, who were children in conflict with law, were released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Subsequently, the petitioners, the homestay manager and its owner entered into a mutual compromise dated 17 August 2026.

The petitioners paid ₹2,06,000 as full and final compensation, tendered an unconditional apology, and the complainant and owner gave their no objection to quashing the FIR.

The petitioners were students and three of them were minors; the parties were also related as cousins.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 351(3), 324(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

It applied the settled principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the nature of the offences, where the dispute is essentially personal or private, the parties have genuinely settled the matter, the complainant has no objection, and continuation of the prosecution would not advance the ends of justice.

The Court also relied on judgments of the Supreme Court concerning quashing on the basis of settlement and considered the welfare and future prospects of young or minor accused persons.

The relief was ultimately made subject to additional compensation and community-service conditions.

The Court found that the dispute arose from damage and disturbance at a homestay and had been resolved through a written settlement supported by payment of ₹2,06,000, an unconditional apology and the complainants’ express no objection.

The Court gave particular weight to the fact that three petitioners were minors, one had recently attained majority, and the remaining petitioners were students preparing for competitive examinations.

In light of the settlement, compensation, apology, the complainants’ acceptance, and the petitioners’ age and educational circumstances, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal case would serve no useful purpose and that quashing would promote the interests of justice and the petitioners’ future welfare.

To address the seriousness of the conduct, the Court imposed further monetary and community-service obligations on petitioners 1 and 3.

Petitioners 1 and 3 were directed to pay ₹25,000 each to the homestay owner within one week and to perform six days of community service—three days at the Sikh Centre Sri Guru Singh Sabha and three days under the “Project Operation Clean-Up” conducted by Jiva Cares.

A compliance report regarding the community service was directed to be submitted through the Public Prosecutor.

No community service was imposed on petitioners 2, 4, 5 and 6, having regard to their ages.

The Rule was made absolute on these terms, with the matter listed for recording compliance on 15 September 2026.