#non-heinous offences

The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against minors after a voluntary compromise, holding that Section 528 of BNSS permits dismissal of non-heinous, interpersonal offences when prosecution serves no public interest. This reinforces that compromise in low-impact criminal disputes between minors can override mechanical prosecution, expanding judicial discretion beyond heinous crimes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that where a motor accident FIR involves no societal harm and parties reach a genuine compromise, the court may quash proceedings under BNSS Section 528 - but imposes a ₹25,000 fine for drunk driving to uphold public safety. This clarifies that compoundable traffic offences can be resolved privately without undermining deterrence for reckless conduct.

Kerala High Court invokes inherent jurisdiction under BNSS Section 528 to quash criminal proceedings where parties settled disputes in non-heinous offences, reinforcing that prosecution serves no public interest post-settlement. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in terminating cases where reconciliation is bona fide and victim has no objection.

Orissa High Court sets aside a one-year imprisonment sentence, holding that offences like extortion and mischief stemming from local disputes (here, a festival subscription dispute) must trigger mandatory probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, unless special reasons justify denial. The ruling reinforces sentencing discretion favoring rehabilitation over incarceration for non-heinous, context-driven offences.

Kerala High Court quashes criminal proceedings after parties settled non-heinous offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, affirming inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.