Non-compoundable cross-FIRs quashed under inherent powers following amicable settlement to secure justice.

The High Court of Delhi heard two connected petitions seeking the quashing of cross-FIRs arising from a common incident between neighbors

In CRL.M.C. 1509/2025, the petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 0574/2024 (PS Jagat Puri) registered under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which corresponds to Section 308 IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide)

In W.P.(CRL) 1287/2025, petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 0591/2024 (PS Jagat Puri) registered under Sections 115, 74, 351(2), 79, and 3(5) of the BNS, corresponding to Sections 323, 354, 506, 509, and 34 of the IPC respectively

The parties entered into a settlement deed on January 8, 2025, through the intervention of family and well-wishers

Although charge sheets were filed, charges had not yet been framed

The injured parties and complainants appeared before the Court, identified themselves, and expressed "no objection" to the quashing of the proceedings

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on an amicable settlement between the parties.

2. Whether continuing the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose given the settlement and the nature of the injuries.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice

It relied on the principle established in Narinder Singh Ors. vs. State of Punjab Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, which permits quashing non-compoundable cases if the Court is satisfied that the scope of conviction is remote and continuing the proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose

The Court further referenced local precedents including Sheikh Mohd. Ors. Vs. The State NCT of Delhi Ors. (Crl. M.C. 8137/2025) and Rohit Sharma Anr. Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi Ors. (Crl. M.C. 2088/2025), where Section 308 IPC proceedings were quashed following amicable settlements

The Court observed that the parties are neighbors who are now residing in peace and harmony

Upon examining the Medical Legal Certificates (MLCs), the Court found that no serious injuries were revealed, which mitigated the gravity of the Section 110 BNS (308 IPC) charge

The Court verified that the settlement was reached voluntarily without coercion

Applying the Narinder Singh doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the complainants no longer wished to press charges and the dispute was essentially private/communal in nature, the likelihood of a successful prosecution was "remote and bleak"

Consequently, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the FIRs to maintain neighborhood peace rather than continuing a trial that would likely end in acquittal

The quashing was made subject to the petitioners in both cases depositing a total cost of Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court directed the parties to submit proof of deposit and original affidavits to the learned Trial Court within six weeks of the order to finalize the disposal of the matters