Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed on compromise where the dispute is personal and conviction remote.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 425/2019, the final report, and the pending sessions-trial proceedings.

The case was initially registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The parties filed a compromise, which the Principal Registrar verified as voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion. The complainant supported the petition; the State opposed it. The trial was at the complainant’s evidence stage

Whether the High Court could quash the FIR, final report and consequential proceedings for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties

Whether the nature of the dispute, the compromise and the stage of the trial justified exercising that power in this case

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P. and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, the Court stated that proceedings for non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in character and the parties have resolved it, but ordinarily not for heinous offences or offences having a serious societal impact.

Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) was relied on for considering whether the available material could sustain the charged offence, whether settlement would restore harmony, and the stage of proceedings; an application made before the trial has substantially progressed may weigh in favour of quashing

The Court considered the verified compromise, the complainant’s lack of objection, and the fact that the dispute was between the parties and they had restored their relationship.

It concluded that, in these circumstances, the likelihood of conviction was remote and that continuing the prosecution risked disrupting the parties’ restored relations. The Court also considered the stage of the case and found that quashing would serve the interests of justice and avoid consuming judicial time.

It therefore exercised its Section 528 BNSS power despite the State’s opposition

The Court quashed FIR No. 425/2019, the final report and the subsequent proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 309/2020, so far as they related to the petitioner, on the basis of the compromise. The petition was disposed of accordingly