Non-compoundable cross-FIRs may be quashed upon settlement where the dispute is essentially private.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 184/2018, registered under Sections 323/354/509/506/34 IPC, and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR followed an altercation between neighbours concerning the water supply; respondent no. 4 alleged that petitioner no. 1 abused and sexually assaulted her, and that the dispute escalated into threats and a physical altercation involving others.

The FIR was a cross-FIR to FIR No. 183/2018, which was the subject of a connected petition.

The parties settled their disputes under a deed dated 4 April 2026, and the agreed amount of ₹2,00,000 had been paid to the petitioners.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement, despite the non-compoundable offences alleged

2. Whether quashing should be made subject to costs, in light of the Court’s view of the parties’ conduct in filing exaggerated complaints

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; that power may be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences where the circumstances justify it.

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 consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the character of the dispute, the likelihood of conviction, and the public interest; serious offences ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled, and each case turns on its facts.

The Court considered the FIRs and chargesheets in this matter and the connected case and found that the parties were neighbours whose dispute arose from a sewerage-related disagreement.

It viewed the complaints as exaggerated and intended to falsely implicate one another, and noted that the parties had settled and the settlement amount had been paid.

In those circumstances, and with the State raising no serious objection, the Court concluded that quashing was warranted to secure the ends of justice.

It also imposed costs in view of the parties’ conduct in setting the criminal justice machinery in motion through exaggerated complaints.

The order was conditional on the petitioners depositing ₹30,000 with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association within two weeks and filing proof of deposit before the Court and the investigating officer.

The petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly.