Non-compoundable proceedings arising from a private dispute may be quashed when settlement makes conviction remote.

The petitioners, Accused Nos. 1–13, sought to quash the proceedings in Alnavar Police Station Crime No. 2/2025, registered for offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 329(3), 352, 351(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The dispute arose in connection with an election to, and management of, Millat High School, Alnavar; the parties stated that they had resolved the dispute and filed a joint application seeking compounding and quashing.

Respondent No. 2 affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and sought quashing of the proceedings.

The offences were treated as non-compoundable, and the petition was considered under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Whether the High Court should quash the proceedings for non-compoundable BNS offences under its inherent jurisdiction in light of the parties’ settlement.

Whether, having regard to the nature of the dispute and the circumstances of the case, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process or be unnecessary in the interests of justice.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including for non-compoundable offences, where doing so secures the ends of justice or prevents abuse of process; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Under Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offence, whether the dispute is predominantly private or civil in character, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement is likely to restore harmony.

Section 359 BNSS was invoked in the parties’ joint application for compounding, but the Court relied on its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings because the alleged offences were non-compoundable.

The Court accepted that the dispute concerned the election and management of a registered society and found that the parties had settled it voluntarily with the intervention of elders.

It further observed that the allegations did not clearly establish the individual roles of the accused or a direct nexus between them and the alleged offences, making conviction appear remote; continuing the prosecution would therefore be unnecessary.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice and avoid an unnecessary continuation of the criminal process.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of as having become unnecessary.