In a significant ruling on the scope of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a compromise between the parties. The judgment reaffirms the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings in private offences, emphasizing that courts must exercise caution while balancing the interests of justice and societal impact.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jasbir Kaur, sought quashing of FIR No. 339 dated 17.07.2018 registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala. The FIR was lodged by the complainant, Gurmeet Singh, alleging offences of a private nature. The parties subsequently entered into a compromise dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), which formed the basis for the petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
Key Facts
- 17.07.2018: FIR No. 339 registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the petitioner and another accused, Manpreet Kaur @ Samanpreet Kaur
- 10.01.2024: Proceedings against Manpreet Kaur @ Samanpreet Kaur quashed by the High Court in CRM-M-40233 of 2021
- 13.02.2026: Compromise agreement executed between the petitioner and the complainant
- 19.03.2026: Present petition (CRM-M-12225-2026) filed for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings
Procedural History
- 19.03.2026: Notice issued to respondents; directions given for recording statements of parties before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate
- 24.03.2026: Parties directed to appear before the trial court for recording statements (either physically or via video conferencing)
- 16.04.2026: Report submitted by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala, confirming:
- Only the petitioner (Jasbir Kaur) and complainant (Gurmeet Singh) were parties to the case
- No accused was declared a proclaimed offender
- The compromise was voluntary
- 29.04.2026: Final judgment delivered, quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 339 dated 17.07.2018 and all subsequent proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, based on the compromise dated 13.02.2026. The petitioner also complied with the direction to deposit Rs. 20,000 as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 - which mirrors Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 - permits the quashing of an FIR registered under non-compoundable offences (Sections 406, 420 IPC) based on a compromise between the parties, particularly when the offences are of a private nature.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Relied on the compromise dated 13.02.2026 to argue that the dispute was private and had been amicably resolved
- Cited the judgment of the Division Bench in Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and another (2024:PHHC;147654-DB), which held that all affected parties must be impleaded in quashing petitions
- Contended that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were predominantly of a civil character and did not impact society at large
For the Respondents
- State of Haryana (Respondent No. 1): Through Senior DAG Priyanka Sadar, stated no objection to quashing the FIR based on the compromise
- Complainant (Respondent No. 2): Through Advocate Deepak Chauhan, admitted the compromise and stated no objection to quashing the proceedings
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the scope of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, which is analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973. The analysis was grounded in established precedents, including:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012(10) SCC 303): The Supreme Court held that Section 482 CrPC confers wide powers on the High Court to quash proceedings in cases where the dispute is private and has been compromised. The Court emphasized that wider the power, greater the caution required.
- Kulwinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab & another (2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052): Reiterated that quashing is permissible in private disputes, particularly those arising from commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes.
- Ram Gopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322): The Supreme Court clarified that heinous and serious offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise, as they have a serious societal impact.
The Court distilled the following legal principles from these precedents:
"(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. (d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. (e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise."
The Court noted that Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is identical in scope to Section 482 CrPC, and thus, the same principles apply. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court observed:
- The offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were private in nature, arising from a dispute between the parties
- The compromise was voluntary, as confirmed by the trial court’s report
- The complainant had entered into the compromise of his own volition, and no coercion was reported
- Quashing the proceedings would further the cause of substantial justice and restore peace between the parties
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 339 dated 17.07.2018 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala, along with all consequential proceedings. The quashing was based on the compromise dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had complied with the direction to deposit Rs. 20,000 as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund (Account No. 65018692589; IFSC Code: SBIN0050306).
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise in Private Offences: A Valid Ground for Quashing
- The judgment reinforces that FIRs registered under private offences (e.g., Sections 406, 420 IPC) can be quashed based on a bona fide compromise between the parties, provided the offences do not have a serious societal impact
- Practitioners should emphasize the voluntary nature of the compromise and the absence of coercion while seeking quashing under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 CrPC
Procedural Safeguards: Recording of Statements
- The Court laid down a detailed procedure for recording statements of parties in quashing petitions:
- Parties may appear physically or via video conferencing before the trial court/Illaqa Magistrate
- Statements can also be recorded through a Commissioner (an Advocate of sufficient standing), who must furnish an affidavit confirming the identity of the parties
- The trial court must submit a report confirming:
- Whether all affected parties have entered into a compromise
- Whether the compromise is valid and voluntary
- Whether any accused is a proclaimed offender
- Whether there are other complainants or accused not impleaded in the petition
- This procedure ensures transparency and fairness in quashing proceedings
Costs as a Condition Precedent
- The Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,000 as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund as a condition precedent for recording statements
- This underscores that quashing is not an automatic right and may be subject to financial or procedural conditions to prevent misuse
- Practitioners should be prepared for similar directions in future quashing petitions
