A compromise cannot justify quashing prosecution for abetment of suicide under inherent jurisdiction.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 163/2025 registered at Police Station Banmore, District Morena, for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, along with consequential proceedings in ST No. 319/2025, on the basis of a compromise.

The prosecution alleged that Roshan, aged approximately 32 years, consumed poisonous substance and died while being taken to Gwalior for treatment.

During the merg enquiry, statements of the deceased’s sister and her husband were recorded, and a prima facie case of abetment of suicide was found against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.

The parties filed a compromise application supported by affidavits. The Principal Registrar verified their identities, signatures, and the voluntary nature of the settlement, finding no threat, inducement, or coercion.

The complainant supported the petitioner’s prayer, whereas the State opposed quashing of the proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash proceedings for the non-compoundable offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties?

Whether the allegations concerning the death of the deceased and the prima facie material collected during investigation constitute circumstances warranting continuation of the criminal trial despite the settlement?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, which confers wide inherent powers on the High Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process, but requires such power to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

Section 108 of the BNS, concerning abetment of suicide, was treated as a grave and non-compoundable offence.

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise where the dispute is essentially private or personal, but offences having a serious impact on society should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

The Court further relied on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, which reiterated these limitations on the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Although the compromise was verified as voluntary, the allegations related to the death of Roshan and the alleged abetment of his suicide, and therefore were not confined to a purely private dispute.

The investigation had disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS against the petitioner and other accused persons.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, the Court held that the seriousness of the offence and its impact on society outweighed the parties’ subsequent settlement.

The Court also declined to assess the evidentiary merits or determine the petitioner’s guilt at the quashing stage, observing that those questions must be decided by the Trial Court after evidence is led.

It held that the compromise could not, by itself, justify quashing proceedings involving the grave, non-compoundable offence of abetment of suicide where a prima facie case existed and the matter was pending trial.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and I.A. No. 7206/2026 seeking acceptance of the compromise was rejected.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order.