Non-compoundable, predominantly private offences may be quashed on voluntary compromise.

The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 444/2025, registered on 7 December 2025 at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Indore, for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 338 and 340(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with consequential proceedings.

During the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent/complainant entered into a compromise. The compromise was verified by the concerned Registrar, who reported that it had been voluntarily executed without threat, inducement or coercion.

The complainant supported quashing of the FIR, while the State opposed the petition on the ground that Sections 336(1), 338 and 340(1) BNS were non-compoundable, although Section 318(4) was compoundable with the Court’s permission.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the accused and the complainant?

Whether, having regard to the private nature of the dispute, the voluntary settlement and the likelihood of restoration of harmony, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any useful purpose?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Shiji v. Radhika, and Ramavtar v. State of M.P., the Court held that proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may, in appropriate cases, be quashed on the basis of compromise, particularly where the dispute is predominantly private in character.

Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi further requires consideration of the adequacy of the evidence, the stage of proceedings and whether settlement would promote harmony between the parties.

Under State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, such power is generally available for offences having an overwhelmingly civil or private character, but should not be exercised for heinous offences, offences involving mental depravity, or offences under special statutes affecting public servants.

Ramgopal v. State of M.P. emphasises that the Court must consider the societal impact of the offence, seriousness of the injury, voluntariness of the compromise and the accused’s conduct before and after the incident.

The Court found that the parties had voluntarily and amicably settled their dispute, and the Registrar’s verification excluded coercion, threat or inducement.

Although some charged offences were non-compoundable, the Court held that statutory non-compoundability under the compounding provisions did not restrict the wider inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS in an appropriate case.

Applying the principles in Laxmi Narayan and Ramgopal, the Court treated the dispute as private in nature and found no indication that it involved heinous conduct, mental depravity or an overriding public interest.

The settlement was also considered likely to restore and preserve harmony between the parties. Since the complainant consented to quashing and continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose, the case was held fit for exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Accordingly, FIR Crime No. 444/2025 dated 7 December 2025, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Indore, under Sections 318(4), 336(1), 338 and 340(1) BNS, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed. The Miscellaneous Criminal Case was disposed of.