After Complainant and Injured Man Settle, P&H HC Quashes FIR Alleging Assault, House-Trespass and Arms Act Offences

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 12 dated 5 February 2025, registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, along with all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioner.

It also directed

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 12 dated 5 February 2025, registered at Police Station City Khanna under Sections 115(2), 118(1) and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, together with consequential proceedings, on the basis of a compromise dated 10 August 2026.

p. 1

Pursuant to the High Court’s direction, the petitioner, complainant Kanta Rani and victim Gaurav Kumar appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khanna, and recorded their statements.

pp. 1–5

The Magistrate reported that the compromise was genuine, voluntary and free from coercion; the Investigating Officer stated that there was one accused, no other criminal case was pending against him, and the case was at the prosecution-evidence stage.

pp. 1–5

The State and respondents No. 2 and 3 did not dispute the compromise.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

pp. 1, 4–6

ii.Whether the alleged offences, including an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, should nevertheless be quashed in light of the nature of the dispute, the verified compromise and the circumstances of the case.

pp. 1, 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was invoked as the basis for the quashing petition.

p. 1

The Court applied the principles in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 10 SCC 303, concerning the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings where parties have settled their dispute.

p. 5

The Court considered whether the settlement was voluntary and genuine, whether the dispute was private in nature, and whether quashing would adversely affect public interest or the administration of justice.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 115 Section 118 Section 333

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323 Section 324 Section 452

04Reasoning

The Magistrate’s report confirmed that the complainant and victim had appeared, were identified, and had stated that they had no objection to quashing; the petitioner likewise stated that the compromise was voluntary and free from pressure.

pp. 3–5

The State and the complainant and victim did not contest the settlement.

p. 5

The Court treated the dispute as personal and inter se, noted the petitioner’s clean antecedents and the absence of broader societal or public-interest consequences, and concluded that continuing the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and amount to an abuse of process.

pp. 5–6