The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that courts may exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash FIRs even in cases involving non-compoundable offences, provided a genuine compromise is established between the parties. This decision reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system must not be used as a tool for harassment when substantive disputes have been resolved.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The High Court quashed FIR No. 603/2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, following a compromise between the parties. The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of process, holding that continued prosecution would serve no public interest where the dispute has been amicably settled.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Yashwardhan alias Yashpal Singh Chudawat, was named in an FIR registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, Udaipur, for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. These provisions relate to offences against public tranquility, obstruction of public servants, and criminal intimidation respectively. The matter arose from a personal dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, Sourabh Singh Bhumihar.
The complainant initially filed the FIR, leading to investigation and potential prosecution. However, prior to the filing of a chargesheet, the parties reached a mutual settlement. The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the compromise rendered further proceedings unnecessary and oppressive.
The complainant, through his counsel, confirmed the settlement and expressed no objection to the quashing of proceedings. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the petition. The matter was thus presented as one where the adversarial nature of the dispute had been resolved, and no public interest remained in pursuing criminal liability.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR for non-compoundable offences when the parties have arrived at a bona fide compromise, without requiring statutory permission for compounding.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that courts may quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) in cases of compromise, even for non-compoundable offences, if the settlement is genuine and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. He emphasized that the offences in question, while non-compoundable under BNS, did not involve grave societal harm or public interest concerns. The settlement was documented and mutually agreed upon, making prosecution redundant.
For the Respondent
The complainant concurred with the compromise and withdrew his desire to pursue the matter. The State did not oppose the petition, acknowledging that the dispute was personal in nature and that no public interest would be served by continuing the prosecution. The Respondent’s position effectively supported the petitioner’s prayer.
The Court's Analysis
The court examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the inherent powers of High Courts to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. It noted that while Sections 126(2), 115(2), and 3(5) BNS are not listed as compoundable offences under Chapter XXI of the BNS, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh had already established that statutory compounding is not the exclusive route to terminate proceedings.
"The power under Section 482 CrPC is not to be used merely to give effect to a compromise, but to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice."
The court applied this principle to Section 528 BNSS, observing that the legislative intent behind the new Code did not curtail the inherent jurisdiction of High Courts. It held that where the dispute is essentially private, the compromise is voluntary and without coercion, and the offences do not involve heinous or societal harm, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust.
The court further distinguished cases involving crimes against women, public servants, or national security, where compromise would not justify quashing. Here, the nature of the alleged offences was personal and non-violent, and the parties had resolved their differences. The court concluded that the FIR and all proceedings stemming from it were an abuse of process and must be quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment clarifies that Section 528 BNSS empowers High Courts to quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences upon genuine compromise, provided the case is not of a serious public nature. Practitioners may now confidently seek quashing in personal disputes involving minor offences under BNS, provided the settlement is documented and uncontested.
The ruling does not extend to offences involving violence, sexual crimes, corruption, or public safety. Courts will continue to scrutinize the nature of the offence, the voluntariness of the compromise, and the presence of public interest. This decision aligns Rajasthan’s jurisprudence with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Gian Singh and reinforces the principle that justice must not become a tool of oppression after the underlying dispute has been resolved.
Lawyers handling criminal miscellaneous petitions should now routinely include affidavits of compromise, witness statements, and settlement deeds to substantiate claims under Section 528 BNSS. The burden remains on the petitioner to demonstrate that the compromise is bona fide and that the case does not fall within the exceptions recognized by higher courts.
