The High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (or S. 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences like IPC 304A where the parties have settled, provided the offence lacks elements of gross negligence and continuation would serve no public interest.

O R D E R

06.01.2026

1. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) seeking quashing of FIR No. 135/2019 dated 03.09.2019, registered under Sections 288/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Roop Nagar, on the ground of settlement.

2. The petitioner in CRL.M.C. 9225/2025 is the owner of property bearing No. 3/68 Roop Nagar, Delhi. He had engaged a contractor - Mohd Irfan Miya, who is the petitioner in CRL.M.C. 9253/2025 for construction of his house. During the course of construction, there was a sudden landslide in the basement of the property. One of the labourers deployed by the contractor, namely Monu@Bhalu@Ramanand was trapped in the mud and debris and, unfortunately, passed away.

3. The FIR was, therefore, registered on the complaint of one Mr. Suraj, who was also working as a labourer.

4. It is stated that the petitioners have entered into a settlement with the family of the deceased on 22.09.2019. They, therefore, seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by learned counsel as well as by the Investigating Officer. The original complainant is also present in Court, and mother of the deceased [respondent No. 2 in both cases] is present on video conference. They are identified by the Investigating Officer and by learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

7. The FIR concerns an allegation that the death was by negligence. Although the offence under Section 304A of IPC is non-compoundable, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, in certain circumstances, the High Courts, in exercise of their powers under Section 528 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC), can quash criminal proceedings, even with respect to non-compoundable offences, on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant, especially when no overarching public interest is adversely affected.

8. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.¹1 (2012) 10 SCC 303. has held as follows:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which over