Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 528 BNSS after voluntary compromise and marriage where conviction is remote.

The two petitions arose from Crime No. 776/2025 registered at Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

In M.Cr.C. No. 6099/2026, the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on the basis of compromise.

The petitioners asserted that petitioner No. 1 and the prosecutrix, petitioner No. 2, were majors and had been in a consensual relationship; they subsequently married.

Pursuant to the High Court’s order dated 6 April 2026, the parties appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-II), who verified that the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.

The prosecutrix stated that she had married petitioner No. 1 and was residing with him happily.

In M.Cr.C. No. 9504/2026, Smt. Mithlesh Upadhyay challenged the order dated 6 February 2026 by which the 20th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, rejected her application under Sections 497 and 503 BNSS for interim custody/release of a seized mobile phone.

The State did not dispute the voluntary nature of the compromise.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and consequential proceedings under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS on the basis of a voluntary compromise and subsequent marriage between the parties.

2. Whether, following quashment of the criminal proceedings, the order refusing release of the seized mobile phone should be set aside and the phone released to Smt. Mithlesh Upadhyay, subject to verification and appropriate conditions.

Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641; and Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, for the principle that criminal proceedings involving predominantly personal or private disputes may be quashed upon a genuine and voluntary settlement where continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and the likelihood of conviction is remote.

The Court also considered Sections 497 and 503 BNSS concerning interim custody/release of seized property.

The Registrar’s verification established that the compromise was genuine, voluntary, and uninfluenced by coercion.

The prosecutrix expressly stated that she had married petitioner No. 1 and had no grievance against him.

The record further indicated that both parties were majors and had been in a consensual relationship.

Since the dispute was essentially personal, the prosecutrix supported termination of the proceedings, and the possibility of conviction was considered extremely remote, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would cause unnecessary harassment and amount to abuse of process.

These circumstances justified exercise of the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS in accordance with the principles laid down in the cited Supreme Court decisions.

Once the criminal proceedings were quashed, the basis for refusing interim release of the seized mobile phone no longer survived; accordingly, the rejection order was set aside, subject to ownership verification and appropriate safeguards.

The FIR, entire charge-sheet, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 776/2025 for offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) BNS were quashed.

M.Cr.C. No. 9504/2026 was also allowed; the order dated 6 February 2026 was set aside, and the seized mobile phone was directed to be released to Smt. Mithlesh Upadhyay subject to verification of ownership and compliance with appropriate conditions, including execution of a proper supurdginama, if required.

Both petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.