Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed after settlement when conviction is remote and continuation unjust.

The petitioner challenged FIR No. 0209 of 2026, registered at Police Station Haldwani under Sections 305(a), 331(2) and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), following an alleged theft from the informant’s premises.

The petitioner and informant filed a joint application and affidavits stating that they had amicably settled the dispute; the informant stated she no longer wished to prosecute and had no objection to quashing the FIR.

The State submitted that Section 317(2) was compoundable, whereas Sections 305(a) and 331(2) were non-compoundable.

1. Whether the High Court could quash an FIR involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the informant.

2. Whether, in light of the settlement and the circumstances presented, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The Court relied on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, for the principle that Section 320 CrPC does not bar the High Court from quashing proceedings where necessary to secure the ends of justice.

It also applied Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160, which holds that the High Court’s power to quash under its inherent jurisdiction is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised, depending on the facts, where a settlement makes conviction remote or bleak and continuing the proceedings would cause injustice or amount to an abuse of process.

The Court stated that its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not limited by Section 320 CrPC.

The Court accepted that the parties had settled the matter and considered the informant’s statement that she did not wish to pursue the case.

It also noted the petitioner’s submission that he suffered from a disorder and the informant’s acknowledgment of his mental disorder.

Applying Gian Singh, the Court concluded that the settlement left only a remote or bleak possibility of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interests of justice.

It therefore treated the case as appropriate for quashing notwithstanding that Sections 305(a) and 331(2) were non-compoundable.

It directed that all subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR would consequently come to an end and allowed the writ petition.