Direction to decide pending compounding applications expeditiously where parties have entered into a settlement.

The five petitioners were accused of inducing respondent No. 2 (complainant) to invest in share market and trading platforms through a co-accused, Samyak Jain, on the promise of high returns

The complainant transferred substantial amounts to bank accounts allegedly belonging to the petitioners, but no returns were received, leading to the registration of FIR No. 0324/2023 for cheating

Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and Criminal Case No. 27256/2025 was instituted

During the pendency of the trial, the parties entered into a settlement deed dated February 14, 2025, and filed an application for compounding/settlement before the trial court

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings based on this settlement

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings in view of the out-of-court settlement

2. Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the pending settlement application under Section 359 of the BNSS within a specific timeline

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the CrPC), which saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law

Section 359(4) and 359(8) of the BNSS, 2023, regarding the settlement of disputes and the compounding of offences

The principles applied involve the judicial discretion to quash non-compoundable offences of a private or civil nature when a bona fide settlement is reached between parties.

The Court observed that the dispute originated from a financial transaction involving alleged fraudulent inducements for market investments

It noted that the parties had already executed a settlement deed and had approached the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur) with an application under Sections 359(4) and 359(8) of the BNSS to close the proceedings

The Court highlighted that the main accused, Samyak Jain, had already been discharged, and a settlement had been reached to resolve the grievance of the complainant

Rather than quashing the FIR directly, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be best served by directing the trial court to adjudicate the pending compounding application, provided the settlement is verified as genuine

It directed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, to consider and decide the application filed under Section 359(4) and 359(8) of the BNSS, 2023, within three weeks from the receipt of the order. The trial court was instructed to decide the matter after verifying the compromise deed and hearing the concerned parties in accordance with law