Non-compoundable proceedings arising from private business disputes may be quashed after voluntary settlement.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) of FIR No. 0637/2017, registered at PS Mehrauli under Sections 452, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and the proceedings arising from it.

The FIR alleged that, following a property-related dispute, the petitioners forcibly entered an office, assaulted respondent no. 2 and others, and took signed property documents.

A chargesheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27 April 2023.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into a General Agreement-cum-Memorandum of Understanding dated 8 May 2026, under which the petitioners paid respondent no. 2 ₹10,000 in full and final settlement.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that the settlement was voluntary, that he had received payment, and that he did not wish to pursue the case.

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

Whether, having regard to the allegations and the nature of the dispute, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve a useful purpose or would cause undue prejudice to the petitioners.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and may extend to non-compoundable offences, but must be exercised cautiously with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that proceedings arising from disputes that are predominantly private or civil in nature may be quashed after settlement where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would defeat the ends of justice; serious and heinous offences ordinarily cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, similarly directs courts to consider whether the settlement serves the ends of justice and whether the case’s civil character, the likelihood of conviction, and the prejudice caused by continuation justify quashing.

The Court accepted the parties’ settlement as voluntary and complete, noting respondent no. 2’s confirmation that the agreed amount had been paid and that he did not wish to pursue the matter.

It treated the dispute as arising from business and construction-related issues and as predominantly private in nature.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would cause unnecessary harassment and prejudice to the petitioners.

It quashed FIR No. 0637/2017, registered under Sections 452, 506 and 34 IPC at PS Mehrauli, together with all consequential proceedings, and disposed of the petition accordingly.