The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, courts may facilitate voluntary mediation to resolve disputes without resorting to coercive criminal proceedings. This order establishes a procedural pathway for parties to explore amicable resolution while preserving the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Arun Dev Tyagi and another, are respondents in Complaint Case No. 10241 of 2024, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The complaint, filed by Sudesh Kumar, invokes Sections 316(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging acts constituting criminal offences. The summoning order dated 21.11.2025 initiated formal proceedings against the applicants.
Key Facts
- The dispute between the parties is rooted in a civil or commercial disagreement that escalated into a criminal complaint
- No allegations of violence, public disorder, or heinous conduct are evident from the record
- The applicants contend that the matter is susceptible to mutual settlement
- The complaint has not progressed beyond the stage of summoning; no evidence has been recorded
- The applicants have not been arrested or subjected to any coercive measure as of the date of this application
Procedural History
- 2024: Complaint Case No. 10241 of 2024 filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar
- 21.11.2025: Summoning order issued against the applicants
- 2026: Application under Section 528 BNSS filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of summoning order and proceedings
- 15.05.2026: Hearing before Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J., resulting in this order
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the summoning order dated 21.11.2025 and termination of all proceedings in Complaint Case No. 10241 of 2024, on the ground that the dispute is amenable to mediation and settlement.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court, under Section 528 BNSS, direct parties to mediation in a criminal complaint involving non-compoundable offences, and suspend coercive proceedings pending such mediation?
Arguments Presented
For the Applicants
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and has been wrongly elevated to a criminal proceeding. They emphasized that the parties are willing to engage in mediation to resolve their differences amicably. Reliance was placed on the principle that criminal justice should not be used as a tool for coercing settlement in civil disputes, and that Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to ensure justice is done in a manner that avoids unnecessary litigation. The counsel urged that mediation be mandated as a pre-trial step to conserve judicial resources and promote reconciliation.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate for the State did not oppose the request for mediation. The State acknowledged that the matter did not involve serious public interest or grave criminal conduct, and that the parties appeared genuinely willing to negotiate. The State did not contest the suspension of coercive action pending mediation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the nature of the dispute, as reflected in the complaint and the conduct of the parties, does not indicate an intent to cause harm to public order or societal interest. The Court noted that the applicants have not been arrested and that the proceedings are at an early stage. The Court emphasized that Section 528 BNSS grants the High Court broad powers to ensure justice is administered efficiently and humanely, including the power to direct alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
"The object of criminal law is not merely punishment, but also restoration and reconciliation where feasible. When parties are willing to settle, the Court must not be a barrier to peace."
The Court held that directing mediation in such cases does not undermine the criminal process, but rather complements it by offering a less adversarial, more constructive resolution. The Court further noted that the suspension of coercive action for a defined period does not amount to acquittal or immunity, but a temporary stay to allow space for settlement.
The Court rejected the notion that non-compoundable offences are inherently ineligible for mediation, distinguishing between legal compoundability and practical reconciliation. It affirmed that mediation is not a substitute for trial, but a pre-trial opportunity to avoid it.
The Verdict
The application is disposed of with the following directions: The applicants shall appear before the court below and file an application for mediation. If filed, the court shall pass an order within one week. The mediation process shall be concluded within four months. For a period of five months or until the conclusion of mediation, whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants. If mediation fails, the court below may proceed with the case. If mediation succeeds, the applicants may approach this Court for appropriate relief.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mediation Is Permissible Even in Non-Compoundable Cases
- Practitioners may now file applications under Section 528 BNSS seeking mediation in criminal complaints where the dispute is essentially civil or commercial in origin
- The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate willingness of both parties to mediate and the absence of public interest harm
- Courts are now expected to treat mediation as a legitimate pre-trial option, not a procedural loophole
Coercive Action Is Not Automatic in Early Stages
- Summoning orders alone do not justify arrest, detention, or other coercive measures if mediation is pending
- The five-month stay sets a clear precedent for temporary suspension of proceedings pending ADR
- This creates a strategic window for parties to negotiate without fear of immediate arrest or trial
Timelines Are Binding, Not Discretionary
- The four-month mediation window and one-week deadline for court orders are mandatory
- Failure to comply may render subsequent proceedings vulnerable to challenge on grounds of procedural delay
- Practitioners must track these deadlines closely and file applications promptly
