Can High Courts Quash FIRs Under BNS, 2023 on the Basis of Private Compromise? Precedent Reaffirmed on Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, reaffirming past Supreme Court and Full Bench precedent, held that it may quash FIRs and criminal proceedings involving mainly private disputes—even for non-compoundable offences under BNS, 2023—if parties have settled and continuation would serve no purpose. The decision maintains consistency with established precedent and is binding on subordinate courts, providing clear guidance for use of inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name CRM-M/28455/2025 of SARWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
CNR PHHC010694322025
Date of Registration 20-05-2025
Decision Date 10-09-2025
Disposal Nature ALLOWED
Judgment Author MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Court High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Bench Single Judge
Precedent Value Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana; persuasive for other High Courts
Overrules / Affirms Reaffirms existing precedent from Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court
Type of Law Criminal Procedure—Quashing of FIRs/Proceedings on Compromise under BNS, 2023 and BNSS
Questions of Law Whether inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS permit quashing of non-compoundable offences when parties have effected a genuine compromise.
Ratio Decidendi
  • The inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS is distinct and wide, allowing quashing of criminal proceedings—including non-compoundable offences—where parties have amicably settled a private dispute.
  • Court must consider the nature and gravity of the crime and whether continuation of proceedings would serve justice or amount to abuse of process.
  • If the dispute is mainly private/civil in nature, quashing is justified to secure the ends of justice.
  • The conclusion relies upon long-settled jurisprudence by the Supreme Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Full Bench.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466
  • B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675
  • Kulwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2007(3) RCR 1052 (Full Bench)
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court The power is intended to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, is broader than compounding provisions under Section 359 BNSS/Section 320 CrPC, and should be exercised after analyzing the nature of the dispute, scope for conviction, and parties’ voluntary settlement.
Facts as Summarised by the Court FIR No.34, dated 27.03.2025, under relevant BNS sections, was registered by private complainant. During pendency of trial, parties negotiated a compromise (dated 31.03.2025). Statements were recorded before Magistrate, who confirmed the compromise was genuine and voluntary, with no coercion or other accused, and parties not linked to other criminal cases.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana
Persuasive For Other High Courts, Supreme Court
Follows
  • Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
  • B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana
  • Kulwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (Full Bench)
  • Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
  • State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Reaffirms that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS permit quashing of FIRs and proceedings on the basis of genuine, voluntary settlement, even for non-compoundable offences under BNS, 2023, when the dispute is essentially private in nature.
  • Confirms that the essential inquiry is genuineness of compromise, absence of coercion, and whether proceedings’ continuation would amount to abuse of process.
  • Follows Supreme Court and Full Bench decisions in establishing the test and boundaries for use of inherent powers in such contexts.
  • Lawyers may rely on this as a binding authority within Punjab and Haryana for seeking quashing after private settlement, and as persuasive authority elsewhere.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The Court reviewed Section 528 of BNSS, which empowers High Courts to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.
  • Section 359 BNSS was acknowledged, laying down compounding procedure, but the Court distinguished the inherent power under Section 528 as broader and not limited by compounding provisions.
  • The Court examined several binding precedents: Narinder Singh, B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, Kulwinder Singh (Full Bench), and Bhajan Lal, drawing on their articulation of inherent powers, scope of settlement-based quashing, and considerations regarding private versus serious or public wrongs.
  • The court’s rationale emphasized that for disputes that are essentially civil or have predominately private character, and where a genuine compromise is achieved, continuation of criminal prosecution is neither necessary nor just.
  • Relief was granted after the trial court/Magistrate confirmed, through recorded statements of both sides and the investigating officer, the absence of coercion and other pending cases, and genuineness of settlement.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • Sought quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings based on a compromise arrived at with the complainant.
  • Asserted that with the dispute now settled, continuing the proceedings would be a futile and abusive process.

Respondent (Complainant and Co-Respondent):

  • Appeared through counsel and confirmed the settlement.
  • Statements before Magistrate affirmed genuineness and voluntary nature of the compromise without coercion.

State:

  • Filed status report per directions, did not oppose quashing after verification of the parties’ settlement and absence of any other criminal case involvement.

Factual Background

FIR No. 34 dated 27.03.2025 was registered at Police Station Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur (Punjab) under Sections 338, 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4) of BNS, 2023, following a complaint by the second respondent. During trial, the parties resolved their dispute amicably and executed a compromise deed dated 31.03.2025. Statements from all parties were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, who verified the voluntary and genuine character of the settlement with no other criminal proceedings pending against them.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 528 BNSS: Interpreted as granting the High Court broad inherent powers to pass orders to prevent abuse of process or to secure the interests of justice, distinct from provisions enabling compounding of offences.
  • Section 359 BNSS: Recognized as laying down compounding procedures but does not restrict High Courts’ inherent jurisdiction under Section 528.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural innovations, directions, or changes in evidentiary requirements are detailed in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.