Non-compoundable offences may be quashed on compromise where conviction is remote and settlement restores harmony.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR Crime No. 24/2026, registered at Mahila Police Station, Khargone, for offences under Sections 85 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings

The parties had reached a compromise.

The Principal Registrar/OSD verified that it was voluntary and made without threat, inducement, or coercion; the complainant did not oppose quashing, while the State opposed the petition

The Court considered the petition on that basis.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings for the non-compoundable offence under Section 85 BNS on the basis of a voluntary compromise

Whether the circumstances—including the parties’ settlement and the likely effect of continuing the proceedings—made quashing appropriate in this case

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court noted that Section 351(3) BNS is compoundable, whereas Section 85 BNS is not

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P., and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court stated that non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private and the settlement warrants that course, but ordinarily not for heinous or serious offences with a substantial societal impact

It also relied on Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi for considering whether the evidence supports the charged offence, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement is likely to restore harmony between the parties

The Court found that the compromise was voluntary and that the complainant consented to quashing

It treated the dispute as one between the parties, who had settled and resumed good relations, and considered that continuing the case could disrupt that relationship. In light of the settlement, the Court assessed the possibility of conviction as remote and concluded that quashing would promote harmony and serve the interests of justice

The petition was disposed of accordingly.