Non-heinous, predominantly civil criminal proceedings may be quashed upon full compromise.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Barwadda P.S. Case No. 167 of 2024, including the order taking cognizance dated 8 September 2025 for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 419, 471, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners and the informant filed affidavits recording a compromise, stating that the case arose from a misunderstanding and that their relationship had been restored.

Three witnesses had been examined, and P.W. 1 referred to the compromise in cross-examination.

The State did not oppose the petition in light of the settlement.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings and cognizance order in view of the parties’ compromise.

2. Whether the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the settlement made continuation of the prosecution unjustified.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preserves the High Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, which considered the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court noted that a High Court may quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature, the parties have fully settled it, and the prospect of conviction is remote; the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact on society must also be considered.

The Court found that the offences were neither heinous nor offences involving serious mental depravity, and that the case arose from a misunderstanding which the parties had amicably resolved.

The Court also noted the restored relationship, the compromise referred to by P.W. 1, and the State’s lack of objection.

In light of the settlement, the Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would cause hardship to the petitioners.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed, and the interlocutory application was disposed of.