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

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of an FIR registered against them under Sections 118(1), 296(B), 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relying on a compromise with the complainant and injured persons.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary and made without threat, inducement or coercion; the complainant and injured persons expressed no objection to quashing.

The complainant supported the petition, while the State opposed it.

The matter remained under investigation and the charge-sheet had not yet been filed.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of a verified compromise, notwithstanding that Section 118(1) BNS was non-compoundable.

Whether the circumstances of the case—including the nature of the dispute, the parties’ settlement and the stage of proceedings—made quashing appropriate in the interests of justice.

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

Under Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P., and the principles considered in Laxmi Narayan v. State of M.P., non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private and settlement warrants that result, but ordinarily not where the offence is heinous or has a serious societal impact.

Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi further states that the Court may consider whether the material supports the charged offence, whether settlement is likely to restore harmony, and the stage of the proceedings; an application made before trial is a relevant consideration.

The Court relied on the Registrar’s verification that the complainant and injured persons had freely settled the dispute and did not object to quashing.

It considered the dispute to be between the parties, noted that they had resumed good relations, and found that the matter was at an early stage, before filing of the charge-sheet.

Applying the principles governing quashing on compromise, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings had a remote and bleak prospect of conviction and that quashing would promote harmony between the parties.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.