Quashing of Cross-FIRs for Non-Compoundable and POCSO Offences Permitted to Maintain Neighborhood Harmony and Peace.

The court heard two cross-petitions seeking the quashing of cross-FIRs registered at P.S. Rohini

FIR No. 502/2025 was lodged by "Survivor H" (a minor) alleging that neighbors entered her house, touched her inappropriately, and threw red chilli powder

The cross FIR No. 504/2025 was lodged by one L.M., alleging that the opposite party entered her house, used obscene words, touched her inappropriately, and assaulted her family

Both incidents arose from a heated argument over noise

Charge-sheets were filed in both matters

During the proceedings, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 13.12.2025, stating they had amicably settled the dispute to maintain harmony in their neighborhood

1. Whether the High Court, exercising its inherent powers, can quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offenses (including Section 10 of the POCSO Act) based on a voluntary settlement between the parties

2. Whether continuing the proceedings would serve any meaningful purpose given the remote possibility of conviction following the settlement

The court primarily relied on the principles governing the quashing of non-compoundable cases based on compromise established in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303

It further applied the test from Narinder Singh Ors. vs. State of Punjab Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, which permits quashing if the court is satisfied that the scope of conviction is "remote and bleak" and that quashing would meet the ends of justice

The court also considered the transition of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

The court observed that the dispute originated from "temperamental issues" and a heated argument between neighbors rather than deep-seated criminality

By examining the parties in person, the court confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and intended to ensure "peaceful living in the locality"

Applying the Narinder Singh precedent, the court reasoned that since the complainants no longer wished to pursue the charges, the likelihood of a successful prosecution was negligible

The court determined that quashing the FIRs was necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent further neighborhood disputes, as the primary objective of the settlement was the restoration of communal harmony

Consequently, the Court quashed FIR No. 502/2025 (under Sections 74/75(2)/76 BNS and Section 10 POCSO Act) and FIR No. 504/2025 (under Sections 115(2)/126(2)/74/75/3(5) BNS), along with all consequential proceedings

The parties were directed to submit original affidavits to the Trial Court within four weeks