Non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where continuation would defeat justice.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), of FIR No. 515/2017, registered at P.S. Karawal Nagar under Sections 379/356/354/34/323/509/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it, on the basis of a settlement

The FIR followed respondent no. 2’s complaint that, while she was shopping with her husband, several boys misbehaved with her, punched her on the chest, used abusive language and broke her gold chain

A chargesheet was filed against the petitioners

Petitioner no. 1 had also lodged a cross-FIR against respondent no. 2’s husband and son

The parties executed a compromise deed on 21 August 2026 and sought to resolve both matters; respondent no. 2 confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the present case

Whether the High Court should quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS, in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether the petitioners should be directed to pay costs in view of the FIR’s age.

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 non-compoundable offences settled between the parties.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that quashing may be warranted where a settlement makes conviction unlikely and continuation would defeat justice, but serious offences affecting society generally cannot be quashed merely on compromise.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, requires the High Court to exercise this power sparingly, consider the nature and gravity of the offence and assess whether the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court also cited Deepak Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, for the principle that the decision depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the offence’s nature, gravity and societal impact.

The Court recorded that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes through the compromise deed, that respondent no. 2 did not wish to pursue the case, and that the cross-FIR had also been settled.

Applying the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice in light of the settlement.

It therefore accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Given that the FIR dated from 2017, the Court also accepted the State’s request for costs.

It directed the petitioners 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.