Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 after an amicable settlement.

The applicants sought to quash the charge-sheet, summoning order and criminal proceedings against them under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC.

During the Section 482 CrPC application, the applicants and respondent No. 2 reached a settlement.

Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit, confirmed that he no longer wished to prosecute, and sought closure of the matter; the applicants likewise confirmed the settlement.

The State opposed the application, contending that Section 325 IPC required the Court’s permission to compound and that Section 452 IPC was non-compoundable.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings involving non-compoundable offences on the basis of a settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the charge-sheet, summoning order and criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the settlement and the complainant’s decision not to prosecute.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 650; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012, decided 6 December 2012, the Court held that this power may be used to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences where the parties have amicably settled.

The State’s submission that Section 325 IPC required the Court’s permission to compound and that Section 452 IPC was non-compoundable was recorded.

The Court considered the complainant’s and applicants’ confirmations that the dispute had been settled and that the complainant did not wish to continue the prosecution.

Applying the cited Section 482 authorities, it concluded that the State’s objection based on the non-compoundable nature of Section 452 IPC did not prevent the Court from quashing the proceedings in its inherent jurisdiction.

Given the settlement, the complainant’s stated position and the parties’ desire to resolve their disputes, continuing the prosecution would be futile.

The application was disposed of accordingly, and any pending application was also disposed of.