Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed after an amicable settlement where the dispute is private and conviction remote.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners, resulting in a charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2025 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 109, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

The parties also had a counter-case, C.C. No. 38/2025, arising from a complaint by petitioner No. 1.

They filed a joint application seeking to compound the offences and stated that village elders had helped them settle their dispute voluntarily.

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2025 under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences in light of the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution, in the circumstances of the case, would serve the interests of justice or amount to an abuse of process.

Section 359(1) BNSS provides for compounding of specified offences; however, the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is distinct and may be exercised to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences where doing so is necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court held that this power must be exercised sparingly, with attention to the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, the likelihood of conviction, and whether the settlement is genuine; serious offences are generally not quashed merely because the parties have compromised.

The Court considered the charge-sheet material and found the dispute to be a private one between the parties, who had settled it through the intervention of village elders without coercion.

It also noted that the alleged role of the petitioners was unclear and that the complainant had not clearly established a direct nexus between them and the offences; given the settlement, the prospect of witnesses supporting the prosecution was minimal and the chances of conviction appeared remote.

Applying the principles in Narinder Singh, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be unnecessary and an abuse of process.

It quashed the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 37/2025 against petitioners Nos. 1–5 for the offences charged and allowed I.A. No. 2/2026.

The order quashed only C.C. No. 37/2025; although the compromise application also referred to C.C. No. 38/2025, the operative order did not dispose of that case.