Non-compoundable assault proceedings may be quashed when parties settle and justice so requires.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), of FIR No. 514/2017, registered under Sections 323/342/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR followed allegations that the petitioners and their associates assaulted the complainant and his brothers; a chargesheet was subsequently filed.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise dated 21 August 2026, also resolving a connected FIR, and appeared before the Court through counsel and in person.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings in view of the parties’ settlement.

Whether quashing should be made subject to costs, given that the FIR was registered in 2017.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, including in appropriate cases involving offences treated as non-compoundable.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that proceedings may be quashed where settlement makes continuation futile and quashing serves justice, subject to the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on society.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, directs courts to exercise this power cautiously, considering the ends of justice, the character of the offence, and whether continuation would cause injustice.

The Court also relied on Deepak Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, for the principle that settlement-based quashing depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, with due regard to the offence’s gravity and societal impact.

The Court found that the parties had finally settled their dispute, confirmed that settlement in Court, and did not wish to pursue the matter further.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Deepak Kumar, it concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the proceedings would be contrary to the interests of justice; it therefore accepted the settlement and quashed the FIR.

In light of the FIR’s 2017 registration, the Court separately imposed costs.

The petitioners were directed to deposit ₹30,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association within two weeks and to place proof of payment before the Court and the concerned IO/SHO.