Non-compoundable assault proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS after amicable settlement.

On 23 December 2025, Respondent No. 2, Megh Singh, allegedly intervened in a quarrel involving his cousins and their neighbours, after which Krishan Kumar Ram and his two sons allegedly assaulted him and caused injuries to his head.

FIR No. 1321/2025 was registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli under Sections 110/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Sections 308/34 IPC.

Three accused persons were apprehended; one was a juvenile and was subsequently acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, while accused Krishan Kumar Ram died on 6 June 2026.

A charge-sheet had been filed and the matter had been committed to the Court of Sessions.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of a Settlement Agreement-cum-Compromise Deed dated 20 August 2026.

Respondent No. 2 confirmed the settlement, stated that he had received ₹15,000 for his damaged mobile phone, had fully recovered, accepted the petitioner’s apology, and had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 110/3(5) BNS, notwithstanding that the offences were non-compoundable and the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions?

Whether the voluntary settlement between the petitioner and the injured complainant, together with the surrounding circumstances, justified quashing the FIR on the ground that continuation of the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose and the likelihood of conviction was remote?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 110/3(5) BNS, corresponding to Sections 308/34 IPC, concerning attempt to commit culpable homicide and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court recognised that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may, in appropriate cases, be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement.

Under Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, such proceedings may be quashed where continuation would serve no meaningful purpose and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

The Court also relied on Antonnette Promilla Fernandez v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 809, and Mohd. Rashid & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., CRL.M.C. 8182/2025, decided on 18 November 2025, where proceedings arising from Sections 308/34 IPC were quashed after considering the nature of the offence and an amicable settlement.

The Court found that the settlement was voluntary and genuine because Respondent No. 2 personally appeared, was identified by the Investigating Officer and his counsel, reiterated the settlement terms, acknowledged receipt of compensation for his damaged mobile phone, accepted the petitioner’s apology, and expressly stated that he had no objection to quashing the FIR.

The petitioner was a young person with no reported criminal antecedents.

The proceedings had also been materially affected by the juvenile co-accused’s acquittal and the death of the other adult accused.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would have no meaningful purpose and the prospects of conviction were remote and bleak.

It therefore considered the case appropriate for exercise of its inherent jurisdiction despite the non-compoundable nature of the alleged offences.

FIR No. 1321/2025 dated 24 December 2025, registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli under Sections 110/3(5) BNS, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed to secure the ends of justice.

The Settlement Agreement-cum-Compromise Deed dated 20 August 2026 and the original affidavits were directed to be submitted before the Trial Court within four weeks so that they could form part of the Trial Court record.

The petition and pending application were accordingly disposed of.