#Section 528

A Punjab-Haryana High Court judgment bars police from directing any further inquiry after a cancellation report unless a magistrate authorises it under Section 173(8) CrPC and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. This limits police powers, ensuring judicial oversight of post-report investigations and protecting accused persons from unwarranted extensions of inquiry.

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the charge-sheet and all criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita because the parties reached a voluntary settlement, even though the offence under Section 109 is non-compoundable. This establishes that a genuine settlement can override non-compoundability, guiding future compounding applications.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a petition to quash an extortion FIR, ruling that a private settlement cannot extinguish liability for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 of the BNSS. This clarifies that compromise is ineffective where the offence is non-compoundable, affecting victims and accused in similar cases.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the petition under Section 528 of the BNS Act, holding that a civil property dispute cannot be criminalised and must be pursued in a civil forum. This limits the use of Section 528 to genuine criminal matters, affecting parties seeking FIRs over ownership conflicts.

The Supreme Court ruled that the statutory absolute limit on police-custody duration under the BNSS is invalid, allowing police to question accused persons outside prison premises. However, the right of an accused to have an advocate present is confined to narrowly defined situations, reshaping investigative practice nationwide.