Non-heinous criminal proceedings arising from private disputes may be quashed upon complete settlement.

Ajay Singh invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings in Angara P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026.

The case alleged offences under Sections 308(2), 308(5), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 27 of the Arms Act; investigation was ongoing.

The petitioner and informant submitted that they had amicably settled the dispute and executed a written compromise. The State had no objection to quashing in light of the settlement.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

2. Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences permitted quashing in the circumstances of this case.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of court or secure the ends of justice.

Applying the principles stated in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, para. 11, which drew on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court recognised that this power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised with due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Heinous or serious offences, and offences with significant societal impact, ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled; proceedings involving a predominantly private or civil dispute may be quashed where the settlement is complete, conviction is remote, and continuation would cause injustice.

The Court treated the dispute as arising from a misunderstanding between the parties that had been amicably resolved through a written compromise.

It found that the alleged offences were neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity, and considered that continuing the proceedings would cause hardship to the petitioner.

In light of the settlement and the principles governing compromise-based quashing, the Court concluded that this was a fit case to terminate the proceedings against the petitioner.

The interlocutory application was also disposed of.