High Courts may exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences involving private disputes where parties have reached an amicable settlement, provided the injuries are minor and the offence carries no significant social impact, ensuring such an exercise secures the ends of justice.

ORAL ORDER

1. In Crl.P.No.5472/2026, petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"Quash the Criminal proceedings pending on the file of the Hon'ble XXXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru in C.C.No.13010/2025 pending against the Petitioner's upon the complaint being made by the second Respondent to the first respondent for the offence punishable under section 109, 118(1), 3(5), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 Act and consequently quash the charge sheet filed by the first respondent in the above case, against the Petitioner's, in the interest of Justice and equity."

2. In Crl.P.No.5461/2026, petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"Quash the Criminal proceedings pending on the file of Hon'ble in S.C.No.1670/2025 on the file of Hon'ble LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH 63) pending against the Petitioner's upon the complaint being made by the second Respondent to the first respondent for the offence punishable under section 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190 of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 Act and consequently quash the charge sheet filed by the first respondent in the above case against the Petitioner's, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. In Crl.P.No.5472/2026, heard Sri.Ramesha S.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. In Crl.P.No.5461/2026, heard Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.Ramesha S.N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

4. Parties to the lis are vegetable vendors in Madivala market. A verbal squabble leads them to blowing of fists against each other, which leads to the complaint and the complaint for offence punishable under Section 109 of the BNS/Section 307 of the earlier regime the IPC inter alia. The parties to the lis have now entered into a settlement and wants these petitions to be closed as it is a case and a counter case.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the offence is one punishable under Section 109 of BNS and should not be terminated by way of a settlement.

6. In an identical issue, the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan AND OTHERS¹(2019) 5 SCC 688, has held as follows:

"12. Now so far as the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] is concerned, this Court in para 29.6 admitted that the offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, this Court further observed that the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed. Its further corroboration with the medical evidence or other evidence is to be seen, which will be possible during the trial only. Hence, the decision in Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] shall be of no assistance to the accused in the present case.

13. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Shiji [Shiji v. Radhika, (2011) 10 SCC 705 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101] , while quashing the FIR by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the accused, there is no