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

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in Jagannathpur (Pundag) P.S. Case No. 446 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

At the time of hearing, the investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioners and opposite party No. 2 jointly stated that they had settled the dispute, and the complainant did not wish to proceed; the State did not oppose quashing.

The petitioners characterised the dispute as private and civil in flavour.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings where the parties have settled a private dispute.

Whether the nature of the offences and the effect of the compromise warranted quashing the proceedings.

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

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, and the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court reiterated that the power to quash on the basis of settlement is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC. The Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. Heinous offences and offences with serious societal impact ordinarily cannot be quashed merely because the parties have settled; by contrast, where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in flavour, the Court may quash if the settlement makes conviction remote and bleak and continuation would cause oppression, prejudice or injustice.

The Court found that the offences in this case were not heinous and did not involve serious offences of mental depravity; instead, they arose from a private dispute.

Given the complete settlement and the complainant’s decision not to proceed, the Court considered the prospect of conviction remote and bleak. It further concluded that continuing the prosecution would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners and result in injustice despite the settlement.

The State’s lack of objection was also recorded.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the compromise application was disposed of; a separate interlocutory application was rejected as not pressed.