Complainants’ Voluntary Compromise Prompts P&H HC To Quash FIR Alleging Cheating And Forgery Against Couple

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for the offences alleged, on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 271 dated 30 October 2025, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61 BNS at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula, together with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of the compromise deed dated 10 August 2026.

It also directed

Any pending applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of FIR No. 271 dated 30 October 2025, registered at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and consequential proceedings, relying on a compromise deed dated 10 August 2026.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

On the Court’s direction, the complainants and petitioners recorded statements confirming that the compromise was voluntary and made without coercion or undue influence.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3

The Magistrate’s report confirmed that the petitioners were the only accused, the respondents were the only complainants or affected parties, and no accused had been declared a proclaimed offender.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3

The complainants and the State expressed no objection to quashing the FIR.

p. 5 · ¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings for the offences alleged, on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7–8

ii.2. Whether the compromise was voluntary and involved all accused, complainants and affected parties, such that quashing would serve the ends of justice.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3 · p. 7 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process; the Court treated it as corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court stated that this power may extend to non-compoundable offences where the dispute is predominantly private or civil in character and quashing would advance justice. The power must be exercised cautiously and is ordinarily inappropriate for heinous or serious offences having a substantial societal impact. Relevant considerations include the nature of the offence, the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise, the parties’ conduct and antecedents, and whether all affected parties are before the Court.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318 Section 336 Section 338 Section 340 Section 351 Section 61

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 320

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 307

04Reasoning

The Court relied on the Magistrate’s report and the statements recorded on oath to find that the compromise was genuine and voluntary, that all accused and complainants were before the Court, and that no accused was a proclaimed offender.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3

The complainants supported quashing, and the State did not oppose it. Treating the alleged offences as primarily private in nature, the Court concluded that terminating the proceedings would bring peace between the parties and further substantial justice; it therefore found the case suitable for exercise of its Section 528 BNSS jurisdiction.

p. 5 · ¶ 4–5 · p. 7 · ¶ 8