The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed that where criminal proceedings arise from minor, non-heinous interpersonal disputes and the parties have voluntarily compromised, the Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR. This decision reinforces the principle that not all criminal cases warrant prosecution when societal harm is absent and reconciliation has been achieved.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Naman Shandil, a minor, was named as an accused in FIR No. 28/2026, registered on 15.03.2026 at Police Station Kotkhai, District Shimla, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 332(c), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complainant, Sujal Rana, also a minor and a first-year student at ABVGIET College, Pragatinagar, alleged that on 13.03.2026 at approximately 10:00 PM, he was summoned to the residence of another minor, Prabhat Nugal, under threat of physical intimidation. Upon arrival, he was allegedly locked in a room with Naman Shandil and three others - Karma, Suryansh, and Nayan - who were consuming liquor. He claimed he was beaten after refusing to immediately repay a debt of Rs. 1,500/- owed to Prabhat Nugal.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 13.03.2026 at the residence of Prabhat Nugal
- The complainant was allegedly confined and assaulted without use of weapons or serious injury
- No medical report or forensic evidence was cited in the record
- The accused and complainant are classmates
- The complainant had borrowed Rs. 1,500/- from Prabhat Nugal prior to the incident
- The alleged assault lasted a short duration and did not involve sexual, gang-based, or premeditated violence
Procedural History
- 13.03.2026: Alleged incident occurred
- 15.03.2026: FIR No. 28/2026 registered at PS Kotkhai
- 15.03.2026 to 17.04.2026: Police investigation completed; charge sheet not filed
- 17.04.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR and all proceedings
- 17.04.2026: Respondent No. 2 (complainant) and his father, Mr. Mast Ram, appeared before the Court and submitted compromise affidavit on oath
- 17.04.2026: State, through Additional Advocate General, conceded no purpose would be served in continuing proceedings
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Accused): The petitioner, through counsel Ms. Jyoti Chauhan, submitted that the matter arose from a minor financial dispute among schoolmates, with no intent to cause grievous harm. He expressed remorse, apologized unconditionally, and undertook not to repeat such conduct. He emphasized his academic standing and future prospects.
For the Respondents (State and Complainant): The State, represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol and others, conceded that the offences alleged were not heinous, the complainant had withdrawn his complaint, and continuation of proceedings would serve no public interest. Respondent No. 2, Sujal Rana, and his father, Mr. Mast Ram, deposed on oath that they had voluntarily compromised the matter without coercion, accepted the accused’s apology, and had no objection to quashing the FIR.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 28/2026 and all consequential proceedings pending before the competent court, along with acquittal of the accused.
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings arising from non-heinous, interpersonal offences when the parties have voluntarily compromised, despite the offences being non-compoundable under law?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 to argue that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (successor to Section 482 CrPC) is not confined to compoundable offences. He contended that the alleged offences - simple hurt, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation - lacked elements of moral turpitude or societal harm. He emphasized that the complainant and his father had unequivocally withdrawn their complaint, and the accused had no prior criminal record. The petitioner argued that continuing proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State, through Additional Advocate Generals, did not oppose the quashing. It acknowledged that the offences were not of a heinous nature, the complainant had expressed full satisfaction, and the accused had shown genuine remorse. The State conceded that no public interest would be served by pursuing prosecution, and the Court was justified in exercising its inherent power to prevent abuse of process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the jurisprudence governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS. It noted that while the power to quash is broad, it is not unfettered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh (supra) had clearly delineated that such power must not be invoked in cases involving heinous offences like murder, rape, dacoity, or those with grave societal impact. However, the Court also emphasized that offences of a personal nature, arising from domestic, familial, or minor interpersonal disputes, may be quashed where compromise is genuine and voluntary.
"The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code."
The Court observed that the offences alleged - Sections 127(2) (criminal intimidation), 115(2) (wrongful confinement), 332(c) (voluntarily causing hurt), and 351(2) (assault) - were not indicative of moral depravity or organized violence. The complainant was not physically injured beyond minor bruising, no weapon was used, and the dispute originated from a trivial debt among minors. The Court further noted that the complainant and his father had appeared before the Court, deposed on oath, and affirmed the compromise without any external pressure.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving public interest, corruption, or crimes against women, where compromise cannot override societal interest. Here, the parties were peers, the conduct was impulsive, and the resolution was spontaneous and sincere. The Court held that continuing prosecution would serve no purpose other than inflicting unnecessary trauma on minors with promising futures.
The Court also referenced Dimpey Gujral v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2013) 11 SCC 497, which held that when offences are personal and not against society, their continuation amounts to an abuse of process. The Court concluded that the balance of justice favored termination of proceedings in light of the compromise and absence of public harm.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court quashed FIR No. 28/2026, registered on 15.03.2026 at PS Kotkhai, District Shimla, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 190, 191(2), 332(c), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. All consequential proceedings against the accused were set aside. The accused, Naman Shandil, was acquitted of all charges framed against him.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can End Non-Heinous Criminal Proceedings
- Practitioners may now confidently argue for quashing under BNSS Section 528 in cases involving minor altercations, petty thefts, or verbal threats among minors or peers, provided the compromise is documented and voluntary
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate societal harm or heinous intent; mere allegation of non-compoundable offences is insufficient
Judicial Scrutiny of Compromise Is Mandatory
- Courts must examine the genuineness of compromise through sworn affidavits or oral depositions
- Parental consent for minor complainants is critical and must be recorded on record
- Absence of coercion, threats, or financial inducement must be established
Avoiding Abuse of Process Is Central
- Where the alleged offence lacks public dimension and the victim has withdrawn, courts must consider whether prosecution serves any legitimate purpose
- Delay in filing charge sheet (here, investigation completed but no charge sheet filed) strengthens the case for quashing
- This precedent applies equally to offences under BNSS, BNS, and prior IPC provisions where the nature of the crime remains unchanged
