The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits quashing of non-compoundable criminal offences when a genuine, voluntary compromise is reached between parties in a purely private dispute. This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings may be terminated to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, even where statutory compounding is barred.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ravinder @ Sonu Sahrawat, was named in FIR No. 9 dated 11.01.2025, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, District Gurugram, for alleged offences under Sections 121(2), 132, 221, 333, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The FIR arose from a personal altercation between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, involving allegations of assault and unlawful assembly. No public interest or societal harm was alleged.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or about 10.01.2025 in Gurugram, Haryana
- The dispute originated from a private disagreement, not involving any public official, property, or institutional interest
- No prior criminal record exists against the petitioner
- The victim (respondent No. 2) and petitioner entered into a written compromise deed on 15.03.2026
- The compromise included mutual apologies, financial settlement, and withdrawal of all grievances
- The compromise was voluntarily executed without coercion, threat, or undue influence
Procedural History
- 11.01.2025: FIR No. 9 registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, Gurugram
- 15.03.2026: Compromise deed executed between petitioner and respondent No. 2
- 23.03.2026: High Court directed parties to appear before the Trial Court for recording statements and directed submission of a report
- 17.04.2026: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, submitted report confirming voluntary compromise, no coercion, and no objection to quashing
- 30.04.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 BNS for quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 9 dated 11.01.2025, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, on grounds of genuine compromise and absence of public interest.
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences when a voluntary and genuine compromise is established between private parties?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab to argue that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC) permits quashing of non-compoundable offences where the dispute is purely private, the compromise is bona fide, and continuation of proceedings would defeat the ends of justice. It was submitted that the offences alleged, though non-compoundable, did not involve moral turpitude, public order, or societal harm, and that the victim had unequivocally consented to the settlement.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Advocate General for Haryana conceded that the compromise was genuine and no objection was raised by the victim. However, the State initially contended that offences under Sections 121(2), 132, 221, and 333 BNS are non-compoundable by statute and therefore beyond the scope of judicial quashing. The State ultimately withdrew opposition after reviewing the trial court’s report and the absence of public interest.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the dispute and the legal framework governing quashing powers. It noted that while Sections 121(2), 132, 221, 333, and 351(2) BNS are non-compoundable under statutory provisions, the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is not fettered by such limitations. The Court emphasized that the power to quash is distinct from statutory compounding under Section 320 CrPC and is rooted in the need to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
"The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court."
The Court applied the five-pronged test from Gian Singh and found that: (i) the dispute was purely personal; (ii) the petitioner had no criminal antecedents; (iii) the alleged acts did not involve heinousness or moral depravity; (iv) there was no impact on public peace or social fabric; and (v) the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion. The Court further held that continuing the trial would serve no public purpose and would only perpetuate personal animosity, thereby undermining the very object of criminal justice.
The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Kulwinder Singh, which held that inherent jurisdiction is not confined to matrimonial disputes and may be invoked in any private dispute where justice demands it.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed FIR No. 9 dated 11.01.2025, registered at Police Station Rajendra Park, District Gurugram, under Sections 121(2), 132, 221, 333, and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court directed that all records relating to the FIR be expunged from the police database and that no adverse entry be made against the petitioner in any official record. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Non-Compoundability in Private Disputes
- Practitioners may now confidently invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNS to seek quashing of non-compoundable offences arising from private feuds, provided the compromise is documented, voluntary, and verified by the trial court
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate public interest or societal harm if opposing quashing
- A written compromise deed, supported by trial court verification, is now a decisive evidentiary factor
Judicial Scrutiny of Compromise Is Mandatory
- Courts must independently verify the genuineness of compromise through trial court reports
- Coercion, social boycott, or financial pressure must be explicitly ruled out
- Oral assurances without corroboration are insufficient
- The victim’s statement before the Magistrate carries decisive weight
Non-Compoundable Does Not Mean Non-Quashable
- The distinction between statutory compounding and inherent quashing must be clearly articulated in arguments
- This judgment expands the scope of Gian Singh beyond matrimonial and financial disputes to include interpersonal altercations involving assault or public nuisance
- Practitioners should file petitions under Section 528 BNS early, with compromise documentation and trial court report attached
