Non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where the dispute is predominantly private.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 183/2018, registered under Sections 308/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR followed a neighbourhood dispute over sewerage and an alleged altercation in which respondents 2 and 3 sustained injuries; it was a cross-FIR to FIR No. 184/2018.

The parties later settled their dispute under a deed dated 4 April 2026. The agreed payment of ₹2,00,000 had been made, and respondents 2 to 4 did not wish to pursue the matter.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings under Sections 308/201/34 IPC on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether quashing should be made subject to payment of costs, given the Court’s assessment of the parties’ conduct.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), preserve the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court must assess the nature and gravity of the offence, the character of the dispute, the likelihood of conviction after settlement, and the public interest; serious offences affecting society ordinarily should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court considered the FIRs and chargesheets in both the present and connected matters and found that the allegations, though serious on their face, appeared fictitious and exaggerated and arose from a personal dispute between neighbours over sewerage.

The parties had settled, the agreed amount had been paid, and the State had no serious objection to quashing.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, continuing the proceedings would not serve the ends of justice.

It also considered the parties’ conduct in setting the State’s machinery in motion through exaggerated complaints and imposed costs.

The quashing was conditional on the petitioners paying ₹30,000 to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association within two weeks and filing proof of payment with the Court and the investigating officer.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.