Non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed when settlement makes continuation contrary to the ends of justice.

FIR No. 346/2025 was registered at PS North Rohini under Sections 191(3), 126(2), 324(4), 76, 79, 351(2), 61(2), 109(1), 118(2) and 190 of the BNS, following the complainant’s allegation that the petitioners and others assaulted her, abused her and damaged vehicles amid a marital dispute involving her son and the petitioners’ family.

A chargesheet was filed against the petitioners.

The parties later executed an MOU dated 15 September 2026 agreeing to cooperate in quashing the FIR.

The complainant confirmed the settlement and stated that she did not wish to pursue the matter; she also referred to her son’s decree of divorce dated 28 November 2025.

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

Whether costs should be imposed as a condition of quashing the proceedings.

Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, 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.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, that power may be exercised where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in character, the parties have settled, and quashing would serve justice; it should not ordinarily be used for heinous offences or matters with serious adverse public impact.

The Court also referred to Deepak Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, which requires consideration of the offence’s nature and gravity and its societal impact.

The Court accepted the complainant’s statement that the dispute had been settled and that she did not wish to continue the case; the parties’ MOU supported that position.

Applying the cited principles, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice and found no impediment to quashing the FIR.

Although the State did not oppose quashing, it sought costs in view of the petitioners’ conduct; the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000.

It directed the petitioners to deposit ₹50,000 jointly or severally with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks, and to file proof of payment before the Court and the IO within one week of payment.

The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.