Quashing of Cross-FIRs for Non-Compoundable Offences Permissible Under Inherent Powers Upon Amicable Settlement Between Neighbours

The parties are neighbors who were involved in a scuffle and altercation on March 31, 2024, originating from trivial issues between their children

The dispute escalated, leading both sides to file complaints before a jurisdictional Magistrate. Pursuant to the Magistrate’s directions, three cross-FIRs (FIR Nos. 77/2026, 78/2026, and 79/2026) were registered at P.S. Prasad Nagar involving various sections of the IPC, including 323, 341, 506, and 509

Subsequently, the parties entered into a comprehensive Compromise Deed dated April 25, 2026, to resolve all disputes amicably

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable cases based on a voluntary settlement between parties in a private dispute

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

The ruling follows the established legal principle that where a dispute is essentially private and personal in nature and the parties have amicably settled their differences, the High Court may quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, as continuing the trial would serve no useful purpose

The Court observed that the conflict arose from a neighborhood scuffle over trivial matters involving children, indicating the dispute was private rather than a grave offense against society

Upon interacting with the parties and their counsel, the Court verified that the settlement was entered into voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence

Further, one of the parties, Dr. Pooja Taxak, committed to withdrawing a related revision petition and complaint as part of the settlement terms

The Court reasoned that since the complainants no longer wished to press charges and the parties intended to move forward amicably, the likelihood of conviction was remote. Thus, the continuation of criminal proceedings would result in an unnecessary burden on the judicial system and the parties themselves

The Court held that quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice and dictated that the petitions and all pending applications be disposed of in view of the settlement