Criminal proceedings for abetment of suicide cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (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 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), together with consequential proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 319/2025, on the basis of a compromise.

The prosecution alleged that Roshan, aged approximately 32 years, consumed a 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 subsequently filed a compromise application supported by affidavits. The Principal Registrar verified their identities, signatures, and consent, and reported that the compromise was voluntary and free from threat, inducement, or coercion.

The complainant supported the petitioner’s request, while the State opposed quashing of the proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings for alleged abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS solely on the basis of a compromise between the parties?

Whether the alleged offences, involving the death of a person and abetment of suicide, constitute matters of such gravity and public significance that they cannot ordinarily be terminated through a private settlement?

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law; however, this power must be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection.

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

The same principle was reaffirmed with reference to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688.

Section 108 of the BNS, concerning abetment of suicide, was treated as a grave and non-compoundable offence, and the Court held that a compromise by the complainant or relatives of the deceased does not, by itself, extinguish the alleged criminality.

The Court accepted that the compromise was genuine and voluntary but held that this fact was insufficient to justify quashing. The allegations concerned the death of Roshan and a prima facie case of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, rather than a purely private dispute.

Since the investigation material disclosed a prima facie case, the Court held that it was not appropriate at the quashing stage to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or determine the petitioner’s ultimate guilt or innocence; those questions were reserved for the trial court.

Applying the principles in Gian Singh and Laxmi Narayan, the Court concluded that the gravity of the offence, its connection with a death, and its broader societal implications outweighed the parties’ private settlement.

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings was dismissed, and I.A. No. 7120/2026 seeking recognition of the compromise was rejected.

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