Non-compoundable offences may be quashed on settlement where injuries are simple and conviction is remote.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 477/2019, dated 18 June 2019, registered at Police Station Bindapur under Sections 308, 324 and 34 IPC, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

The FIR was lodged by Jaswant @ Bunty, who alleged that he and his brother Rajender Verma were assaulted by the accused persons on 17 June 2019 during a scuffle, allegedly involving weapons, resulting in injuries to both complainants.

The accused were charge-sheeted and charges had already been framed; the matter was pending trial.

The parties subsequently executed a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding dated 6 September 2026.

The injured respondents appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement, stated that they had received compensation for their medical expenses, and expressed that they had no objection to quashing the FIR.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings arising from offences under Sections 308, 324 and 34 IPC, despite the offences being non-compoundable, on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties?

Whether, in view of the nature of the injuries, the parties’ voluntary settlement, and the complainants’ unwillingness to pursue the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, for the principle that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement where continuation of the prosecution would serve no meaningful purpose and the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak.

The Court also relied on several Delhi High Court decisions permitting quashing of proceedings involving Section 308 IPC in appropriate settlement cases, including Antonnette Promilla Fernanadez v. State NCT of Delhi, Mohd. Rashid v. State, Manoj Kumar v. State, Afzal @ Afjal @ Dabloo v. State, and Mahender Singh @ Sunny v. State.

The Court found that the settlement was comprehensive and voluntary, and that both injured respondents personally appeared, were identified by the Investigating Officer, reaffirmed the settlement, acknowledged receipt of compensation, and stated that they no longer wished to pursue the prosecution.

The medical records showed that the injuries were simple and blunt and that neither injured person had suffered an injury caused by a sharp object.

In these circumstances, and considering the parties’ reconciliation and the remote likelihood of a meaningful prosecution or conviction, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

Applying its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS in accordance with the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court determined that quashing the proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The quashing was made subject to each petitioner depositing ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

The parties were further directed to place the Memorandum of Understanding dated 6 September 2026 and the original affidavits before the Trial Court within two weeks thereafter, so that they could form part of the trial court record.