Non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed on compromise where the deceased victim’s legal heirs consent and trial would be futile.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 367/2017 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena, for offences under Sections 365, 323 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti and Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, on the basis of a compromise.

The alleged victim, Shyam Singh Tomar, died on 24 May 2025; his wife, Nisha Devi, filed an affidavit consenting to the compromise, while his son, Mukesh Singh, also settled the dispute with the accused.

The parties filed compromise applications supported by affidavits, and the Principal Registrar verified their identities, signatures, and the voluntary nature of the settlement.

One accused, Raghu alias Raghvendra Tomar, was not impleaded because he was a minor at the time of the incident.

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the accused and the victim’s legal representatives?

Whether the compromise, verified by the Principal Registrar and supported by the affidavits of the deceased victim’s wife and son, was sufficient to justify termination of the criminal proceedings?

Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law when the parties had amicably resolved their dispute?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, while referring to the corresponding power under Section 482 of the CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Shiji v. Radhika, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat, which recognise that criminal proceedings involving predominantly private or personal disputes may be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise even where the offences are non-compoundable, provided that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

The Court also considered the authorities cited by the petitioners, including Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Vikas Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court found that the compromise was voluntary and free from threat, inducement, or coercion, as confirmed through the Principal Registrar’s verification.

Although the original victim had died, his wife and son had expressly affirmed the settlement and raised no objection to quashing the proceedings.

Applying the Supreme Court’s principles on quashing criminal proceedings after settlement, the Court concluded that the dispute had been genuinely resolved and that continuation of the trial would be a futile exercise, causing unnecessary consumption of judicial resources and serving no meaningful purpose.

The Court therefore held that its inherent jurisdiction could be invoked notwithstanding the non-compoundable character of the offences.

It consequently quashed FIR Crime No. 367/2017 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena, under Sections 365, 323 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, together with all consequential proceedings arising from it.

The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.