The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently quashed an FIR registered under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 190, 352, 351(2), 174 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, after the parties arrived at a compromise. The judgment reaffirms that inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in non-heinous offences where parties settle their disputes amicably, distinguishing such cases from those involving grave crimes against society.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from an FIR lodged by respondent No. 2, Santosh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), alleging that on 24.05.2026 at about 11:00 PM, the petitioners, Kewal Ram and others, arrived at Harijan Basti in a vehicle and threatened him. The petitioners allegedly directed the complainant to cast his vote in accordance with their instructions, failing which they would deal with him after the election results. The complainant further alleged that the petitioners made caste-based remarks during the incident. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 25 of 2026 was registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under the aforementioned provisions of the BNS and the SC/ST Act.
Key Facts
- The complainant alleged threats and caste-based remarks by the petitioners on 24.05.2026.
- The FIR was registered on 25.05.2026.
- Before the proceedings could conclude, the parties entered into a compromise.
- The petitioners apologized for their conduct and undertook not to repeat such acts.
- The complainant, of his own volition, stated that the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding and expressed no objection to quashing the proceedings.
Procedural History
- 25.05.2026: FIR No. 25 of 2026 registered under Sections 126(2), 191(2), 190, 352, 351(2), 174 BNS and Section 3(1)(i) SC/ST Act.
- 29.06.2026: The High Court directed the respondent-State to file a status report.
- 03.07.2026: The complainant appeared before the Court and affirmed the compromise.
- 03.07.2026: The High Court disposed of the petition, quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 25 of 2026 and all consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law, relying on the compromise arrived at between the parties.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether FIRs involving non-heinous offences can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) when the parties have settled their dispute amicably, particularly in cases where the offences do not involve grave crimes against society.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners relied on the compromise arrived at between the parties.
- They argued that the offences alleged were petty and non-heinous, not involving moral turpitude or grave crimes.
- Continuation of proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose, as the complainant had no objection to quashing the FIR.
For the Respondent-State
- Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, fairly stated that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
- He acknowledged that the chances of conviction were remote and bleak in light of the complainant’s statement and the compromise.
- The State raised no objection to quashing the FIR.
For the Complainant
- Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate, represented the complainant, who affirmed that he had entered into the compromise of his own volition and without any external pressure.
- The complainant stated that the FIR was a result of a misunderstanding and that the petitioners had apologized for their conduct.
- He expressed no objection to quashing the FIR and consequent proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to quash criminal proceedings. It relied on the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court to delineate the scope of such powers:
-
Nature of Offences: The Court distinguished between heinous offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) and non-heinous offences. Heinous offences, being public in nature, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise. However, offences of a predominantly civil or personal nature, such as those arising from commercial transactions, matrimonial disputes, or family disagreements, may be quashed if the parties settle their disputes amicably.
"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. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable and where the parties have settled the matter between themselves, however, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution."
-
Guidelines in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab: The Court referred to the parameters laid down in Narinder Singh for quashing proceedings based on compromise. It noted that offences involving mental depravity or grave crimes against society cannot be quashed, even if the parties settle their dispute. However, petty offences or those arising from private disputes may be quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
"Such a power is not to be exercised in the cases which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society."
-
Reiteration in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab: The Court observed that the principles in Narinder Singh were reiterated in Gian Singh, where the Supreme Court held that the inherent power to quash proceedings must consider the nature and gravity of the crime and its social impact. The Court cautioned against quashing proceedings in heinous offences but permitted it in non-heinous, personal disputes.
-
Application to the Present Case: The Court held that the offences alleged in the FIR were petty and non-heinous, not involving moral turpitude or grave crimes. Given the compromise between the parties and the remote chances of conviction, the Court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 25 of 2026 registered at Police Station Nerwa, District Shimla, along with all consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Permissible in Non-Heinous Offences
- The judgment reaffirms that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in non-heinous offences where parties settle their disputes amicably.
- Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue for quashing of FIRs in cases involving petty offences, private disputes, or misunderstandings, provided the complainant consents and no grave crime is involved.
Limits of Inherent Powers
- Heinous offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) or those involving moral turpitude cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a compromise.
- Offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or those committed by public servants in their official capacity are unlikely to be quashed, even if the parties settle.
- Courts will scrutinize the nature of the offence and its social impact before exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings.
Practical Considerations for Lawyers
- Document the Compromise: Ensure that the compromise is voluntary, without coercion, and documented in writing. The complainant’s statement before the Court should affirm this.
- Highlight the Nature of Offence: Emphasize that the offence is non-heinous, petty, or personal in nature, with no grave societal impact.
- Cite Precedents: Rely on Narinder Singh, Gian Singh, and Dimpey Gujral to strengthen arguments for quashing.
- Address Remote Conviction Chances: If the chances of conviction are remote or bleak, argue that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
