Section 307 IPC allegations may be quashed where private settlement makes conviction remote.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings in Gandey P.S. Case No. 37 of 2024, registered under Sections 323, 324, 325, 341, 354(B), 307, 504 and 506/34 IPC.

The parties jointly represented, supported by affidavits, that they had amicably settled their dispute and restored their relationship; the victim did not wish to pursue the case, and the State raised no objection to quashing.

The petitioners also submitted that investigation was ongoing and no charge-sheet had been filed.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of the parties’ settlement, notwithstanding the inclusion of Section 307 IPC.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve the interests of justice or instead cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners after the settlement.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of court; that power is distinct from statutory compounding and must be exercised sparingly.

Applying Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Court noted that serious and heinous offences are generally not quashed merely because of a compromise, while cases with a predominantly private or civil character may be quashed where the settlement is complete and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

A Section 307 IPC allegation does not, by itself, bar quashing: the Court must consider the material, including the nature and location of injuries and the weapon used, and assess the genuine prospect of conviction.

The Court treated the dispute as a private matter and found that the parties had reached a complete settlement, supported by their affidavits, with the victim unwilling to proceed and the State not opposing quashing.

It concluded that the offences involved were not heinous and that the possibility of conviction was remote and bleak; continuing the case despite the settlement would cause the petitioners oppression, prejudice and injustice.

On that basis, it considered quashing appropriate under the principles in Narinder Singh.

Interlocutory Application No. 14681 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly.