Non-compoundable Section 110 BNS proceedings may be quashed upon settlement where conviction is remote.

An FIR was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Lines for an offence under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 308 IPC, arising from a scuffle during a demolition drive on 4 August 2024.

The petitioner allegedly caused injuries to Respondent No. 2 with an iron water pipe after an altercation concerning the removal of scrap material from a shop.

The charge-sheet had been filed and charges had been framed.

During the pendency of proceedings, the parties executed a Settlement Deed dated 23 March 2026.

Respondent No. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement, stated that he had received compensation for his medical expenses, and expressed that he had no objection to quashing the FIR.

He further stated that the settlement was voluntary and that he had recovered from his injuries.

The petitioner tendered an apology, which Respondent No. 2 accepted.

The petitioner was stated to have no adverse antecedents.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash proceedings for an offence under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 308 IPC, on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties.

Whether, in view of the settlement, apology, payment of medical compensation, and the complainant’s lack of objection, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve any meaningful purpose.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice.

The alleged offence under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 308 IPC, was treated as a non-compoundable offence.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, for the principle that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed on the basis of a genuine settlement where continuation would serve no meaningful purpose and the likelihood of conviction is remote and bleak.

The Court also relied on Antonnette Promilla Fernandez v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 809, and Mohd. Rashid & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., CRL.M.C. 8182/2025, decided on 18 November 2025, where proceedings involving Sections 308/34 IPC were quashed following amicable settlements.

The Court found that the dispute arose from a localized scuffle caused by a misunderstanding during the removal of scrap articles, rather than from circumstances indicating a continuing or serious threat between the parties.

Respondent No. 2 personally confirmed the settlement, accepted the petitioner’s apology, acknowledged receipt of compensation for medical expenses, and stated that he had no objection to quashing the FIR.

The Court was satisfied that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion, pressure, or undue influence.

Considering the petitioner’s absence of adverse antecedents, the complainant’s recovery, and the parties’ restored cordiality, the Court concluded that the possibility of conviction was remote and that continuation of the prosecution would not serve a meaningful purpose.

The circumstances therefore justified exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

The Settlement Deed dated 23 March 2026 and the original affidavits of the parties were directed to be filed before the Trial Court within four weeks so that they could form part of the Trial Court record.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.