Non-compoundable offences arising from predominantly civil disputes may be quashed upon complete settlement.

The petitioner and respondent no. 2 entered into an agreement to sell an industrial property. After disputes arose over payments and the sale consideration, respondent no. 2 initiated civil and criminal proceedings, including FIR No. 102/2026 under Sections 318(3), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The parties later executed a settlement under which the petitioner paid respondent no. 2 ₹2,16,82,500; respondent no. 2 confirmed receipt and disclaimed any further claim to the property.

The specific-performance suit and complaint case were also withdrawn.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to quash the FIR and related proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether the nature of the dispute and the completed settlement warranted quashing the non-compoundable offences alleged under the BNS.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; that power may extend to non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled, but must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Relying on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that proceedings arising from disputes with an overwhelmingly or predominantly civil character, including commercial disputes, may be quashed where the parties have resolved their entire dispute; the Court should also consider whether the prospect of conviction is remote and whether continuation would cause oppression or injustice.

The Court treated the case as a private dispute arising from an agreement to sell and noted that the parties had resolved their dispute through a written settlement, the agreed amount had been paid in full, and respondent no. 2 no longer asserted rights over the property.

It also took account of the withdrawal of the related civil suit and complaint case.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings was unwarranted and that quashing was appropriate to give effect to the settlement.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.