Settlement can justify quashing non-compoundable harassment proceedings under inherent powers.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0063/2018, registered at Police Station Alipur under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the consequential proceedings.

The FIR followed respondent no. 2’s complaint alleging sexual harassment; a chargesheet was subsequently filed.

During the proceedings, the parties executed a settlement deed/Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 July 2026.

The complainant appeared before the Court and stated that she did not wish to pursue the matter further.

The State sought costs if the FIR were quashed, having regard to the petitioner’s former position.

1. Whether the High Court could quash proceedings under Sections 354A and 509 IPC, which are non-compoundable, on the basis of a settlement between the petitioner and the complainant.

2. Whether quashing should be made subject to payment of costs.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including in appropriate cases involving non-compoundable offences; that power is distinct from the statutory power to compound offences and must be exercised sparingly, with regard to the ends of justice and prevention of abuse of process.

In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that quashing may be appropriate where settlement makes conviction unlikely and continuation of proceedings would defeat justice, while cautioning against compromise-based quashing of serious offences.

Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, similarly directs courts to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, and whether conviction is remote and continuation would cause injustice.

The Court also relied on Deepak Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1305, for the principle that the decision depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the offence’s gravity and societal impact.

The Court noted that Section 354A IPC is non-compoundable, but held that this did not preclude quashing under its inherent jurisdiction.

It recorded that the parties had settled their disputes and that the complainant, present in Court, did not wish to pursue the case.

Having considered the cited principles and the parties’ submissions, the Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings; its reasoning did not set out a separate, detailed assessment of the offence’s societal impact or the likelihood of conviction.

The Court made relief conditional on payment of costs, following the State’s request.