In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, relying on a compromise between the parties. The judgment underscores the court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would serve no useful purpose, even in non-compoundable offences, aligning with precedents set by the Supreme Court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Jagdev and Rajesh Sangwa, were accused in FIR No. 85/2026 dated 09.06.2026, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023. The complainant, Seema, alleged that the dispute arose from monetary transactions between the parties, which she claimed were marred by criminal intent.
Key Facts
- The FIR was lodged on 09.06.2026 for offences under BNS, 2023.
- The dispute stemmed from financial dealings between the parties.
- The complainant alleged that the FIR was filed out of vengeance due to the monetary dispute.
- The parties subsequently entered into a compromise, resolving all disputes amicably.
- The complainant submitted that she no longer wished to pursue the criminal proceedings.
Procedural History
- 09.06.2026: FIR No. 85/2026 registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur.
- 08.07.2026: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (No. 5264/2026) filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR.
- 08.07.2026: The High Court heard the petition and passed the present order.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that the dispute arose from monetary transactions, which had been fully settled.
- Contended that the complainant had no intention to pursue the case further and had executed a compromise voluntarily.
- Submitted that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
For the Respondent (Complainant)
- Represented by counsel, the complainant confirmed the compromise and stated she did not wish to prosecute the case further.
- Affirmed that the compromise was entered into without coercion or undue influence.
For the State
- The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the compromise, as the complainant was represented through counsel.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 85/2026 and all consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, on the ground that the dispute had been amicably resolved.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the court was whether an FIR registered for non-compoundable offences under the BNS, 2023, could be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the parties, where continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 708/2021), which held that even serious offences could be quashed if the parties settled the dispute and continuation would serve no purpose.
- Cited Madhukar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 819), where the Supreme Court observed that while offences under Section 64 BNS (corresponding to Section 376 IPC) are grave, the court's inherent powers to secure ends of justice must be exercised based on the facts of each case.
- Referenced a Coordinate Bench decision in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2736/2023), where an FIR under Section 376 IPC was quashed on the basis of compromise.
For the Respondent (Complainant)
- The complainant's counsel submitted that the matter had been amicably settled and she did not wish to pursue the case further.
The Court's Analysis
The court examined the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Prashant Bhartiya and Madhukar, emphasizing that while offences under Section 64 BNS are grave, the court's inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are not rigidly constrained. The court observed:
"Although offences under Section 64 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 376 IPC) are undoubtedly grave in nature and ordinarily ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise, the inherent powers of the Court to secure the ends of justice are not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised in the facts and circumstances of each case."
The court noted that the complainant had unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case, and the compromise was entered into voluntarily without coercion. Continuation of proceedings would only burden the courts without a productive outcome. The court relied on the following key considerations:
- Voluntary Compromise: The complainant had categorically stated that she did not wish to pursue the proceedings, and the compromise was executed without undue influence.
- No Grievance Surviving: The dispute, which arose from monetary transactions, had been fully resolved, and no grievance remained between the parties.
- Abuse of Process: Continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, serving no useful purpose.
The court distinguished the present case from those where quashing would undermine the gravity of the offence, holding that the peculiar facts justified the exercise of inherent powers.
The Verdict
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed FIR No. 85/2026 dated 09.06.2026, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2), and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023. All consequential proceedings arising from the FIR were also quashed and set aside. The stay petition, if any, was disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Justify Quashing Even in Non-Compoundable Offences
- Courts may quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences under BNS, 2023, if the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and continuation would serve no useful purpose.
- The complainant's unequivocal statement of no objection is critical, especially where the dispute arises from civil transactions (e.g., monetary dealings).
Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS Are Flexible
- Section 528 BNSS empowers courts to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process, even in grave offences, if the facts justify such intervention.
- The judgment reinforces that the exercise of inherent powers is not formulaic but must be guided by the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Practical Takeaways for Practitioners
- For Defence Counsel: Emphasize the voluntary nature of the compromise, the complainant's no-objection, and the absence of surviving grievances to seek quashing.
- For Prosecution: Argue against quashing where the offence's gravity outweighs the compromise, or where the complainant's statement appears coerced.
- For Complainants: Ensure that compromises are documented clearly, with affidavits affirming voluntary settlement to avoid future disputes.
- For Lower Courts: Exercise caution in quashing grave offences, but consider the Supreme Court's precedents where compromise aligns with justice.
