The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms and applies prevailing precedent, holding that even non-compoundable offences under the BNS can be quashed based on genuine compromise where prosecution would serve no useful purpose and societal interests are not adversely affected. The decision draws on Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents and acts as binding authority on subordinate courts in Haryana and Punjab.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/21425/2025 of LOVE AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010609412025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether non-compoundable offences under BNS can be quashed on the basis of compromise if the dispute is private and societal interests are not affected |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court’s inherent powers allow quashing of criminal proceedings, including non-compoundable offences, where the dispute is personal, compromise is genuine, and continuance of prosecution does not serve the ends of justice or public interest. The Court sets out relevant factors for exercising this discretion, including absence of criminal history, lack of heinousness, no societal impact, and voluntary, genuine compromise without coercion. Reliance is placed on binding decisions that distinguish between inherent powers for quashing and statutory power of compounding. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (and corresponding BNS provision) is of wide plenitude but subject to ends of justice and abuse of process tests; compromise in personal disputes can justify quashing; inherent power distinct from Section 320 compounding. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Dispute between private parties; FIR under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 304, 324(4), 333 & 351 of BNS; parties reached amicable compromise; no criminal history or societal impact; compromise found genuine and voluntary by trial court; private respondents consented to quashing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the High Court’s wide inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of genuine compromise where the dispute is private and societal interests are not implicated.
- Provides a structured list of considerations for courts: absence of criminal history, lack of societal impact, genuine and voluntary compromise, and no element of coercion.
- Narrows the distinction between powers of compounding under Section 320 CrPC and inherent powers for quashing under Section 528 BNS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC).
- Lawyers may cite this authority for quashing in similar fact scenarios involving the new BNS provisions as well as legacy IPC/CrPC matters.
- The judgment makes clear that opposition by the State is not decisive if the victim is willing and justice is served by quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered binding precedent from the Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh and the Supreme Court in Gian Singh, which affirm the High Court’s powers to quash proceedings even for non-compoundable offences in cases of private settlement.
- It distinguished inherent power for quashing (Section 528 BNS / Section 482 CrPC) from the statutory power of compounding under Section 320 CrPC, emphasizing that inherent power is broader, subject to ends of justice and abuse of process.
- The Court set out a checklist of criteria justifying quashing: the dispute is personal/private, no criminal history, non-heinous, no societal effect, genuine and voluntary compromise, and full consent from the victim.
- The trial court’s verification of compromise as genuine and voluntary formed an important evidentiary basis.
- The Court concluded that continuation of prosecution would not serve public interest and would amount to abuse of process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The occurrence was purely personal and private in nature.
- Parties had amicably settled and entered genuine compromise.
- Victim had no objection to quashing; prosecution would serve no public interest.
Respondent (State of Haryana)
- Offences are non-compoundable under BNS.
Private Respondents
- No objection to quashing.
- Compromise was voluntary, without coercion or undue influence.
Factual Background
The case arose from an FIR (No.14 dated 03.02.2025) lodged under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 304, 324(4), 333 & 351 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita at Police Station B.P.T.P, Faridabad. The dispute was personal between private parties. The parties reached an amicable settlement, which was verified as genuine and voluntary by the trial court. The victim and other private respondents gave statements supporting the quashing of proceedings, and the compromise was found to be without any coercion or undue influence.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers).
- It distinguished between the statutory scheme of compounding under Section 320 CrPC and the broader scope of inherent powers.
- The inherent power under Section 528 BNS is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.
- Offences in question (Sections 190, 191(3), 304 BNS, among others) are non-compoundable under the statute, but this does not strictly bar quashing where compromise and facts justify it.
Procedural Innovations
- Required statements of parties to be recorded before the trial court to verify the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise.
- Mandated trial court’s report as the evidentiary basis for quashing, ensuring judicial scrutiny over compromise authenticity.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Follows and applies Supreme Court and Full Bench precedents (Gian Singh; Kulwinder Singh) regarding use of inherent powers to quash non-compoundable offences on compromise.