Non-compoundable assault FIR may be quashed on settlement where injury is simple, subject to costs.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of FIR No. 09/2026, registered at PS Chhawla under Sections 118(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the basis of a settlement.

The complaint alleged that, during a dispute concerning accounting fraud, petitioner no. 2 attacked respondent no. 2 with a knife, causing a bleeding neck injury, while the other petitioners were also involved.

The judgment records the alleged incident date as 5 January 2025, although it states that the FIR was registered on 6 January 2026.

The parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 15 January 2026; respondent no. 2 confirmed before the Court that he had settled the matter and did not wish to pursue it.

The State did not seriously oppose quashing, but requested that costs be imposed.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

Whether costs should be imposed as a condition accompanying the quashing order, having regard to the nature of the charges.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including for non-compoundable offences, where doing so secures the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that power must be exercised sparingly and with caution; the Court should consider the nature and gravity of the offence, whether the dispute is predominantly private, the likelihood of conviction, and whether continuation of proceedings would defeat justice.

Serious offences with substantial societal impact are generally not to be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court considered the parties’ settlement and respondent no. 2’s stated unwillingness to pursue the case, and accepted that the matter could be resolved through quashing under its inherent jurisdiction.

The State raised no serious objection, though it sought costs in view of the nature of the injury and charges; the Court accordingly allowed quashing while imposing a monetary cost.

It directed the petitioners to pay ₹30,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks and to file proof of payment before the Court and the Investigating Officer within one week after deposit.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.