Non-compoundable proceedings may be quashed where an amicable settlement makes conviction remote.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–12, sought to quash Alnavar Police Station Crime No. 1/2025, pending before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Dharwad, alleging offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 49 read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complainant and the petitioners filed a joint application and affidavits stating that they had settled their dispute through the intervention of elders, voluntarily and without coercion, and that the complainant had no objection to quashing the proceedings.

The State was represented by the High Court Government Pleader.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to quash the proceedings for alleged non-compoundable offences following the parties’ settlement.

2. Whether, in light of the settlement and the circumstances of the case, continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process or serve no useful purpose.

The Court invoked Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, as the source of the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences.

It distinguished that power from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC and referred to Section 359 BNSS in connection with the parties’ compounding application.

Relying on *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that quashing on settlement is discretionary and should be assessed with regard to the nature and societal impact of the offences, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and whether continuation would cause injustice; serious offences affecting society ordinarily should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court treated the dispute as one between the parties that had been amicably resolved with the intervention of elders, and accepted the parties’ statements that the settlement was voluntary.

It further reasoned that the complainant’s support for the prosecution was unlikely to continue, the accused persons’ roles and alleged direct nexus were unclear, and the prospects of conviction were therefore remote; continuation of the proceedings would be unnecessary.

On that assessment, the Court concluded that exercising inherent jurisdiction was appropriate notwithstanding its description of the offences as non-compoundable.

It quashed the entire proceedings in Alnavar Police Station Crime No. 1/2025, pending before the III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Dharwad, against the petitioners for the offences specified in the order; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as no longer surviving.