COURT’S DECISION
The High Court allowed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (formerly IPC equivalents) relating to assault, criminal force, wrongful restraint, and use of abusive language. The Court found that the parties, who were neighbours, had amicably resolved all disputes through a formal settlement deed, and the complainant expressed no objection to quashing the FIR.
Relying on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court recognising the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice, the Court held that continuing prosecution would be unnecessary and would amount to abuse of process. The FIR and all proceedings were therefore quashed, subject to the petitioners depositing ₹10,000/- as costs with the Advocates’ Welfare Trust.
FACTS
The FIR emerged from a neighbourhood altercation that occurred on 04.08.2025. According to the allegations, one neighbour and her family members were allegedly subjected to physical and verbal assault by the opposite side. This led to the registration of an FIR under the newly enacted BNS provisions (corresponding to Sections 323, 341, 354, 509, 34 of the former IPC).
During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, both sides informed the Court that they had resolved their disputes amicably and executed a Compromise Deed dated 30.10.2025, annexed with the petition. The complainant personally confirmed before the Court—without pressure, coercion, inducement, or fear—that she had no objection to the FIR being quashed and did not wish to pursue the matter. All petitioners were duly identified in person or via VC by their counsel and by the Investigating Officer.
ISSUES
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, could quash a criminal case arising from neighbourhood assault after the parties reached a genuine settlement.
- Whether minor, personal disputes of this nature, though including non-compoundable offences, fit within the legal framework allowing quashing to secure the ends of justice.
- Whether continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process once the complainant has withdrawn her allegations and does not wish to proceed.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
The petitioners submitted that the dispute arose out of a trivial neighbourhood altercation, and all parties had subsequently reconciled. They presented the Court with a written compromise duly signed by both sides, affirming that the matter had been fully resolved. They argued that the dispute was neither of a grave nor heinous nature and did not involve offences against society at large.
They contended that the power of the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction is wide enough to quash such cases, especially when the complainant herself wishes to bring the matter to an end. They submitted that continued prosecution would cause unnecessary harassment and serve no fruitful purpose, as both sides had decided to maintain peace and withdraw all grievances.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
The State acknowledged the amicable settlement and stated that it had no objection to quashing the FIR, given that the principal complainant had voluntarily endorsed the settlement before the Court. The complainant, appearing personally, confirmed that the compromise was genuine, executed without coercion, and that she wished the FIR to be quashed entirely.
On this basis, the prosecution supported the petition, relying on judicial precedents that allow quashing of criminal proceedings in matters that are predominantly personal and do not involve serious societal impact.
ANALYSIS OF THE LAW
The High Court examined the legal framework governing quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement. Under Section 528 of the new BNS (parallel to Section 482 CrPC), the Court retains inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
The Court reiterated that criminal cases involving purely personal disputes, particularly those stemming from neighbourhood quarrels, matrimonial issues, family conflicts, or financial disagreements, may be quashed even when the offences are non-compoundable.
The core principle is whether the continuation of proceedings would be unfair, unjust or futile, particularly when the complainant and accused have reconciled.
The Court found that this case fell squarely within that category. The offence did not involve serious harm to society, the complainant had no intention of pursuing the matter further, and prolonging the case would serve no meaningful purpose.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
Held: High Courts may quash criminal cases after settlement if continuation would be unjust or an abuse of process.
Reference Here: The Court cited this landmark judgment to affirm that where parties settle and the offence is personal—not affecting society at large—the criminal proceedings may be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675
Held: Even non-compoundable offences can be quashed to facilitate reconciliation in personal disputes.
Reference Here: Used to reinforce that inherent powers exist to encourage peace and prevent unnecessary criminal litigation.
Both precedents firmly support the Court’s conclusion that neighbourhood disputes resolved amicably should not be burdened with ongoing criminal trials.
COURT’S REASONING
The Court gave substantial weight to the presence of all parties and the Investigating Officer’s confirmation of their identities. The complainant’s clear and voluntary statement confirming the settlement played a decisive role.
The Court noted that the dispute was private in nature, and not of a kind requiring continued prosecution in the interest of society. Thus, it would not advance justice to continue with the FIR. The High Court emphasized the doctrine of preventing abuse of legal process and protecting judicial resources from being used on cases where both sides have already reconciled.
The Court concluded that the settlement was genuine and that “no useful purpose will be served” in keeping the FIR alive.
CONCLUSION
The High Court quashed the FIR registered under provisions relating to assault, criminal force, wrongful restraint, use of abusive language, and common intention. All consequential proceedings were also quashed.
The quashing was made conditional upon the petitioners depositing ₹10,000 with the Advocates’ Welfare Trust within one month.
With that, the petition along with all pending applications was disposed of.
IMPLICATIONS
- Reinforces judicial support for amicable settlements in minor criminal disputes.
- Establishes that neighbourhood conflicts, once resolved, need not burden criminal courts.
- Clarifies that the High Court’s inherent powers remain expansive under the BNS framework.
- Encourages peaceful resolution over prolonged litigation.
- Provides practical guidance for future petitions seeking quashing based on settlement.
FAQs
1. Can the High Court quash non-compoundable offences after a settlement?
Yes. The Court may quash such offences if the dispute is personal and further prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
2. Does the complainant’s consent matter in quashing an FIR?
Absolutely. The complainant’s voluntary no-objection is a key factor in determining whether continuing the trial serves any purpose.
3. What conditions can the Court impose while quashing an FIR?
The Court may impose costs or conditions, such as depositing money with a welfare fund, to ensure fairness and responsibility.
