Societal Interest In Prosecuting Serious Offences Prevails Despite Settlement Between Parties: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement between the accused and the victim cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings involving a serious offence where societal interest lies in prosecution of the offender.Justice Pranjal Das observed, “Thus, in serious offences, societal interest lies in prosecution of the offenders and adequate punishment, upon being found guilty. This...
The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement between the accused and the victim cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings involving a serious offence where societal interest lies in prosecution of the offender.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “Thus, in serious offences, societal interest lies in prosecution of the offenders and adequate punishment, upon being found guilty. This societal interest would prevail in addition to the interest of the informant and the victim. Therefore, even if the informant/victim and the accused enter into a settlement, it might still be justified vis-a-vis societal interest to prosecute the offences, irrespective of the possible outcome during the trial.”
The observation came while the Court was considering a petition under Section 528 BNSS filed jointly by the accused and the informant seeking quashing of a case.
According to the FIR, the accused allegedly threw petrol on the informant and tried to burn him alive inside a bathroom while he was changing his clothes, causing serious burn injuries. After investigation, police filed a charge sheet under Sections 326, 285 and 286 IPC. The parties later entered into a settlement recording that they had been in a relationship and had mutually agreed to resolve their differences and approach the High Court for quashing the proceedings.
The petitioners submitted that as the matter arose out of their relationship and the parties had entered into a settlement, no purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings. The State, while not disputing the settlement, submitted that the offences were serious in nature and that the victim had sustained serious burn injuries.
The High Court said that the power of quashing under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, could be exercised even in respect of non-compoundable offences, but the ambit of such power was not unlimited.
It said, “Such power can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences as well. However, the ambit of the power of quashing is not unlimited and that certain categories of offences should not be quashed, even if there is a settlement between the parties.”
The Court further said that though a settlement may diminish the chances of the prosecution succeeding, in serious offences the matter does not remain confined only to the interests of the informant or the victim.
“In serious offences, the matter does not remain confined only to the interests of the informant or the victim and a societal interest also comes into play – on account of which the State takes up the prosecution of such serious offences,” the Court added.
It further held that even where the informant or victim and the accused enter into a settlement, prosecution may still be justified in view of the societal interest involved.
“Therefore, even if the informant/victim and the accused enter into a settlement, it might still be justified vis-a-vis societal interest to prosecute the offences, irrespective of the possible outcome during the trial.”
The Court said that in view of such societal interest, exercising the jurisdiction of quashing to bring the prosecution to an end at the threshold may not be justified.
“In view of such societal interest, the exercise of jurisdiction of quashing to nip the prosecution in the bud may not be justified from the point of view of the overall interest of the criminal justice system,” it added.
Coming to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the medical report showed that the victim had suffered 44% burns on the hands, lower abdomen and lower limb and that the injuries had been labelled grievous. He had also been referred to the surgery department at Guwahati, where he was admitted to the ICU.
The Court said, “Therefore, it is revealed from the materials per se that the victim sustained serious injuries, even though the dispute and the eventual alleged crime emerged out of a breakdown in their relationship.”
The High Court, therefore, held that the settlement between the parties did not justify putting an end to the prosecution.
“Keeping in mind the principles discussed above – this Court is of the considered view that despite the settlement arrived at between the parties, this case would not justify putting an end to the prosecution by exercising the power of quashing under Section 528 BNSS,” the Court concluded and accordingly, the petition for quashing was dismissed.
Case No.: Crl.Petn./101/2026
Case Title: Miss Maning Baki and Anr v. The State of AP
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 125
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/28/2025