Non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed upon settlement where conviction is remote.

The case arose from a cross-FIR dispute following an altercation between the applicants and the complainant/respondents during Holi celebrations on 14 March 2025.

The parties lived in the same locality and later filed a compounding application, supported by affidavits, stating that they had amicably settled the dispute.

The complainant/respondents told the Court they did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.

The State objected that the offences were non-compoundable.

The applicants sought to set aside the charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order, and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 86 of 2026 before the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed on the basis of the parties’ compromise, despite the offences being non-compoundable

2. Whether the compromise between the parties warranted quashing the proceedings against the applicants

The Court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, and the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases notwithstanding that the offences are non-compoundable.

It further invoked the principle that where a settlement makes the prospect of conviction remote and bleak, continuation of the proceedings may cause prejudice and injustice to the accused.

The judgment does not identify a statutory provision as the basis for relief.

The Court interacted with the parties and was satisfied that the dispute, which arose from a misunderstanding, had been amicably resolved and that the complainant/respondents no longer wished to pursue the case.

Although the State objected that the offences were non-compoundable, the Court applied the cited principle permitting quashing in appropriate cases after compromise.

It allowed the compounding application and quashed the proceedings against the applicants.

The criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly.