The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that even non-compoundable offences may be quashed upon a voluntary compromise between parties, provided the underlying dispute is predominantly civil in nature. This ruling reinforces the High Court’s inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent abuse of process and advance substantial justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Twinkle Arora, was named as the sole accused in FIR No.4 dated 06.01.2020, registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for theft. Sections 201 IPC (destruction of evidence) and 66 of the Information Technology Act were added later. The complainant was Mohit Sharma, who alleged unauthorized access to his digital files and subsequent misappropriation of data and property.
Key Facts
- The alleged incident occurred in December 2019, leading to the filing of the FIR on 06.01.2020.
- The investigation was completed and a chargesheet was filed.
- No other accused were named in the FIR.
- No other complainant or aggrieved party existed beyond Mohit Sharma.
- The petitioner was never declared a proclaimed offender.
- On 12.12.2025, a compromise affidavit (Annexure P-2) was executed between Twinkle Arora and Mohit Sharma, wherein the complainant withdrew all allegations and expressed willingness to settle the matter amicably.
Procedural History
- 06.01.2020: FIR No.4 registered at PS Sector-65, Gurugram.
- 2020 - 2025: Investigation conducted; chargesheet filed; no trial proceedings commenced.
- 12.12.2025: Compromise affidavit executed between petitioner and complainant.
- 23.02.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR and all proceedings.
- 09.02.2026: Court issued directions for recording statements of parties before the trial court to verify the authenticity and voluntariness of the compromise.
- 18.02.2026: Petitioner and complainant appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurugram, as directed.
- 27.02.2026: Trial Court submitted report confirming:
- No other accused or complainant existed.
- Petitioner was never a proclaimed offender.
- Compromise was voluntary and entered into by the complainant on his own volition.
- 23.03.2026: Final hearing before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No.4 dated 06.01.2020, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of the compromise affidavit dated 12.12.2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court may exercise its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings in a non-compoundable offence like theft (Section 379 IPC) when a voluntary and genuine compromise has been reached between the parties, and the dispute is essentially of a civil character.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, arguing that the nature of the offence - rooted in a private commercial dispute over digital data and property - was overwhelmingly civil. The compromise was voluntary, without coercion, and had been verified by the trial court. Counsel emphasized that Section 528 BNSS mirrors Section 482 CrPC and that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction must be used to prevent injustice and promote settlement.
For the Respondent
The State of Haryana, through the Additional Advocate General, and Respondent No.2, through Mr. Ankur Jain, did not oppose the quashing. Both acknowledged the compromise was genuine, the complainant had no objection, and no public interest was compromised. The State accepted that the offence did not involve violence, moral turpitude, or societal harm, and thus fell within the permissible scope for quashing under established jurisprudence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), reaffirming that while Section 482 CrPC (and now Section 528 BNSS) does not override the compoundability provisions under Section 320 CrPC, it grants the High Court wide discretionary power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
"The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes."
The Court noted that the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC, while non-compoundable, is often rooted in private disputes, particularly when involving digital assets, contractual breaches, or personal property. The absence of violence, the lack of other accused or complainants, and the verified voluntariness of the compromise were decisive factors.
The Court further held that the trial court’s report, confirming the absence of coercion and the complainant’s independent consent, satisfied the threshold for invoking inherent jurisdiction. The Court rejected the notion that quashing is impermissible merely because an offence is non-compoundable, emphasizing that the nature of the dispute - not the label of the offence - determines the appropriateness of quashing.
The Court also clarified that such power must be exercised only after investigation and chargesheet, which had occurred here, and not during the pendency of investigation - a condition fully met.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court quashed FIR No.4 dated 06.01.2020, registered at Police Station Sector-65, Gurugram, under Section 379 IPC (with subsequent additions of Section 201 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act), along with all consequential proceedings. The compromise affidavit dated 12.12.2025 was accepted as genuine and voluntary. All pending applications stood disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Non-Compoundability in Civil Disputes
- Practitioners may now confidently seek quashing under Section 528 BNSS in theft, cheating, or data-related offences where the dispute is commercial or personal in nature.
- The focus must shift from the statutory classification of the offence to its factual character - whether it is predominantly civil.
- A verified compromise affidavit, supported by trial court confirmation, is a strong evidentiary tool.
Trial Court Verification Is Critical
- Always seek a formal report from the trial court confirming:
- No coercion or undue influence
- No other complainants or accused
- No history of absconding or prior criminal conduct
- Video conferencing or commissioner-recorded statements are acceptable if properly authenticated.
Avoid Premature Applications
- Applications under Section 528 BNSS must be filed only after chargesheet is filed and investigation is complete.
- Applications filed during investigation will be dismissed as premature.
Public Interest Threshold Is Narrow
- Offences involving sexual violence, murder, or organized crime remain outside the scope of quashing.
- But offences like theft, breach of trust, or digital fraud arising from private transactions are now clearly within the permissible zone.
