The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction allows it to quash criminal proceedings at any stage whether at the FIR stage, after the charge sheet is filed, or during trial to prevent the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

You do not need a Calendar Case (CC) number or a final report/charge sheet to approach the High Court. A certified copy of the FIR along with the petition and joint affidavits is sufficient to initiate the quashing petition.

If the allegations fall under personal, outraging-modesty, stalking, or intimidation charges without severe violence or POCSO elements, High Courts do exercise discretion to quash the FIR if:

The dispute is personal/private in nature.

The victim voluntarily files an affidavit stating that the compromise is entered out of her own free will, without coercion or pressure.

Continuation of the trial would cause undue hardship and mental agony without any likelihood of conviction.

High Courts strictly verify whether the compromise is genuine or forced. The court usually orders the victim and the accused to appear in person (or via video conference) or sends the matter to the trial/local court for verification of the joint compromise affidavit.

Criminal law procedures involve case-specific facts, especially when charges of sexual harassment or blackmail are involved.

Key Precedents on Quashing Non-Compoundable Offences

Supreme Court Benchmark (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012): The Supreme Court recognized that the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) has wide inherent powers to quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences—such as private personal disputes, marital issues, or criminal intimidation—if both parties arrive at a genuine compromise and continuation of the case would be an exercise in futility.

Supreme Court Guidelines (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, 2019): The Court affirmed that while heinous offences like murder, rape, or dacoity cannot be quashed on compromise, offences arising out of personal, commercial, or family disputes—where the victim voluntarily agrees to drop proceedings without coercion—can be quashed by High Courts.

Madras High Court Practice (C. Muniappan line of cases / Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat principles): The Madras High Court regularly quashes FIRs/Charge Sheets under Sections 354, 354A, or 506 IPC when the victim files a joint compromise affidavit confirming that the settlement is voluntary, personal peace is restored, and no coercive blackmail or intimidation led to the compromise.

The High Court evaluates whether the victim is acting freely to avoid further mental strain and hardship.When the matter is predominantly between private individuals and does not impact society at large, the Court exercises its inherent powers to promote peace and secure the ends of justice.

1)