Non-compoundable criminal proceedings quashed under BNSS after the parties amicably settled the dispute.

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in O.S. No. 5945 of 2023 and separately sought to strike off the plaint.

During the revisions, the first respondent undertook to pay the petitioners the balance amount of ₹83 lakh; the proceedings were stayed for six months to allow settlement.

The first respondent subsequently paid ₹83 lakh by two demand drafts, and the parties filed a joint compromise memo confirming that their civil disputes were finally settled.

The petitioners also agreed to take steps to quash the related criminal proceedings and withdraw their complaint before the Bar Council in accordance with law.

Whether the Court should give effect to the parties’ compromise by disposing of the civil revision petitions and rejecting the plaint in O.S. No. 5945 of 2023.

Whether the Court could quash the non-compoundable criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 6886 of 2023 on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the criminal proceedings following the parties’ amicable settlement, notwithstanding that the proceedings were stated to be non-compoundable.

The civil revisions arose under Article 227 of the Constitution and concerned an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but the Court did not analyse the merits of that provision; it disposed of the civil dispute in terms of the compromise.

The Court recorded that the first respondent had paid the agreed ₹83 lakh and that the petitioners acknowledged receipt; the signed joint compromise memo stated that the disputes arising from the civil revisions were finally settled, with no further claims between the parties concerning their subject matter.

In light of that settlement, the Court quashed C.C. No. 6886 of 2023 under Section 528 BNSS.

It also gave effect to the compromise in the civil proceedings, without deciding the underlying Order VII Rule 11 issue on its merits.

As to the Bar Council complaint, the petitioners’ counsel stated that a withdrawal letter would be submitted, and the Court directed that its acknowledged copy be filed in the Registry.

The civil revision petition was allowed in those terms, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.