The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the extraordinary power of High Courts to quash criminal proceedings even in non-compoundable offences when a genuine compromise is reached between parties. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in promoting social harmony and preventing abuse of process, even where statutory bars exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, individuals named in FIR No. 006 dated 07.01.2026 registered at Police Station Munak, Karnal, District Karnal, faced criminal charges under Sections 115, 126, 3(5), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations arose from an alleged altercation involving caste-based insults and assault. The matter was pending before the Trial Court at Assandh.
Key Facts
- The incident leading to the FIR occurred on or about 06.01.2026
- FIR was registered on 07.01.2026
- The parties, despite the serious nature of the charges, entered into a written compromise on 04.02.2026
- The compromise was executed voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence
- The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings
Procedural History
- 06.01.2026: Alleged incident leading to criminal complaint
- 07.01.2026: FIR No. 006 registered at Police Station Munak, Karnal
- 04.02.2026: Parties executed a compromise deed
- 18.02.2026: High Court directed parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate to verify the genuineness of the compromise
- 11.03.2026: Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Assandh, submitted report confirming the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and free from coercion
- 18.03.2026: Petition heard and decided by the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 006 dated 07.01.2026 and all proceedings arising therefrom, including any investigation, charge sheet, or trial, on the basis of the compromise dated 04.02.2026.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences under the BNS and the SC/ST Act, 1989, upon a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2007) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to argue that the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings is not confined to compoundable offences or matrimonial disputes. They emphasized that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and had been verified by the Trial Court. They contended that continuing the proceedings would serve no public interest and would amount to an abuse of process.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not oppose the petition. The prosecution acknowledged the verified compromise and conceded that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings, particularly in light of the High Court’s settled jurisprudence on inherent powers.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC, and reaffirmed the principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh. It held that the power to quash is inherent, wide, and not circumscribed by the compoundability provisions under Section 320 of the CrPC or analogous restrictions under the BNS.
"The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice."
The Court emphasized that the power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, but where a compromise is verified as genuine and voluntary by a judicial officer, and where the nature of the offence does not involve grave societal harm or public outrage, the Court is duty-bound to give effect to the compromise. The Court noted that the SC/ST Act, while designed to protect vulnerable communities, does not preclude judicial intervention where the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the compromise is not abhorrent to public policy.
The Court further observed that the continuation of proceedings in such cases would waste judicial resources and inflict unnecessary hardship on the accused, particularly where there is no likelihood of conviction.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed FIR No. 006 dated 07.01.2026 registered under Sections 115, 126, 3(5), and 351(2) of BNS, 2023, and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Munak, Karnal. All consequential proceedings, including investigation and trial, were set aside. Pending applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can End Even Serious Criminal Proceedings
- Practitioners may now confidently file petitions under Section 528 BNSS to quash non-compoundable offences where a genuine compromise is verified by a Magistrate
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate that the compromise is fraudulent or against public interest
- This applies equally to offences under the SC/ST Act, provided the compromise is not a tool to evade justice
Judicial Verification Is Critical
- A compromise must be independently verified by a judicial officer - oral assurances or private settlements are insufficient
- The Magistrate’s report confirming voluntariness and absence of coercion is indispensable
- Courts will not entertain petitions based on unverified or uncorroborated compromise deeds
Inherent Powers Are Not Exhaustive But Are Binding
- The High Court’s power under Section 528 BNSS is not limited by statutory compoundability rules
- This principle now applies uniformly across all non-compoundable offences under BNS, IPC, and special statutes
- Lawyers must advise clients to formalize and seek judicial verification of compromises at the earliest possible stage
