Non-compoundable commercial-offence proceedings may be quashed on settlement where conviction is remote.

The complainant, a grain trader, alleged that he dispatched 10 tonnes of garlic after co-accused Rajendra Singh undertook to arrange its sale and payment. The goods and payment were not returned.

During investigation, co-accused Sohanlal allegedly stated that he, along with others including the applicant, had sold the garlic in Mumbai.

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, on the basis of a compromise with the complainant. The compromise was verified by the Registrar, who reported that it was voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion; the complainant did not oppose the petition.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its power under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the applicant and complainant.

2. Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the compromise and the prospects of conviction justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicant.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and the other cited authorities, the Court stated that proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in character and the parties have settled it, but generally not where the offence is heinous, serious, or has a substantial societal impact.

The Court may consider the nature of the offence, the material supporting the charge, the stage of proceedings, the prospects of conviction, and whether settlement is likely to restore harmony.

The Court treated the dispute as one arising from a commercial transaction and noted that the complainant and applicant had voluntarily settled their dispute, as verified by the Registrar, with the complainant expressing no objection.

Applying the cited principles, it considered that the compromise made the possibility of conviction remote and that continuation of the proceedings could disrupt the parties’ restored relationship. It therefore found quashing appropriate in the interests of justice.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.