Non-compoundable proceedings arising from a neighbour dispute may be quashed after voluntary settlement.

FIR No. 929/2017 was registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar following an altercation between the petitioners and respondent nos. 2–6, who were neighbours. The allegations included assault, injuries and threats

The parties later executed a Compromise-cum-Settlement Deed dated 22 September 2026. Respondent nos. 2–6 appeared before the Court, were identified by the Investigating Officer, and stated that they had settled the dispute and did not wish to pursue the proceedings

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether costs should be imposed as a condition of quashing the proceedings.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, including in respect of non-compoundable offences, where doing so secures the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process.

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the power must be exercised sparingly; the Court should consider the nature of the offence, the effect on society, whether the dispute is predominantly private, and whether the likelihood of conviction is remote. Serious offences with substantial public impact are not ordinarily quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court treated the dispute as a private neighbourhood altercation that the parties had voluntarily resolved. Respondent nos. 2–6 confirmed the settlement and their wish not to proceed, and the Court found that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, it concluded that quashing was appropriate in the circumstances.

The State sought costs because the FIR had been pending since 2017, and the Court imposed a cost of ₹10,000.

It directed the petitioners to deposit ₹10,000 with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust within four weeks and file proof of deposit; the parties remain bound by the settlement deed.

The operative order lists Sections 323/342/506/34 IPC, whereas the judgment’s opening paragraph also lists Section 354 IPC.