Non-heinous criminal proceedings may be quashed on settlement where conviction is remote and the dispute is private.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings in Telco P.S. Case No. 49 of 2026, registered under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 118(2), 117(2), 109(1), 140(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioner and the informant, a minor represented by his father and natural guardian, filed affidavits stating that they had amicably settled the dispute and that the informant did not wish to proceed.

The State had no objection to quashing.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement, although the alleged offences include Section 109(1) BNS.

2. Whether the alleged offences and circumstances were such that continuation of the proceedings would serve no sufficient purpose, given the settlement and the stage of investigation.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Under Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para. 29, that power is distinct from statutory compounding and may be exercised in non-compoundable cases where necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

The Court should ordinarily not quash heinous or serious offences merely because of a compromise, but may consider the nature of the dispute, the likelihood of conviction, prejudice from continuation, and the stage of proceedings; a settlement reached while investigation is ongoing may favour quashing.

Section 109 BNS corresponds to Section 307 IPC for purposes of the principles discussed in Narinder Singh.

The Court accepted the parties’ affidavits and their joint submission that the dispute had been settled, and noted the informant’s wish not to proceed and the State’s lack of objection.

It characterised the dispute as private, found that no public policy was involved and concluded that the offences were not heinous or otherwise indicative of serious mental depravity.

In light of the complete settlement and the fact that investigation was still ongoing, the Court considered the prospect of conviction remote and bleak and continuation of the proceedings oppressive and prejudicial to the petitioner.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of accordingly.