Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed following voluntary settlement where justice so requires.

The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 167/2025, registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar under Sections 110, 79 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The FIR arose from an altercation in which the petitioners allegedly assaulted respondent no. 2 and caused an injury to respondent no. 3; a chargesheet was also filed under Section 115(2) BNS.

During the proceedings, the parties executed a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), without monetary consideration.

Respondent no. 2 confirmed that she did not wish to pursue the case.

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for a non-compoundable offence on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

Whether the parties’ voluntary settlement justified quashing the FIR in the circumstances of this case.

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court applied the principle that a High Court may quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences where the settlement makes continuation of the prosecution futile and quashing would secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

That power is to be exercised cautiously, and not ordinarily for heinous or serious offences with a substantial societal impact.

Section 110 BNS was non-compoundable, but the Court considered that the parties had resolved their dispute through an MoU executed voluntarily and without force, coercion or undue influence; respondent no. 2 affirmed its voluntary character.

On that basis, and having regard to the settlement, the Court concluded that quashing was appropriate.

The petition and pending application were disposed of, and the parties were directed to remain bound by the MoU.