FIR Cannot Be Quashed Based on Partial Compromise During Active Investigation Into Allegations of Forgery

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash FIR Crime No. 185/2026 registered at P.S. Madhavnagar for an offence under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his brother (co-accused Om @ Udhav Motwani) used a forged letterhead to obtain ₹18 lacs from respondents No. 2 to 4 via mobile phone.

While the petitioner returned ₹9 lacs and reached a compromise with the complainants, the complainants did not settle with the co-accused.

The State opposed the petition, noting that the investigation was ongoing, handwriting samples were yet to be collected, and the petitioner was not cooperating.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court based on a partial compromise between the petitioner and the complainants during an ongoing investigation involving allegations of forgery.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) for the seven categories where quashing is permissible.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), which distinguishes between compoundable offences and the High Court's power to quash non-compoundable private disputes, while cautioning against quashing serious or heinous crimes.

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), emphasizing that courts should not thwart investigations into cognizable offences at an initial stage.

Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur (2026), holding that quashing an FIR involving forgery before obtaining a handwriting expert's report is unjustified.

The Court observed that the investigation is at a preliminary stage where vital evidence, including handwriting examination of the allegedly forged documents, is yet to be collected.

Despite the petitioner’s claim of a settlement, the Court noted that the allegations were not merely private but involved forgery and fraud, leading to the addition of Sections 326(3), 340(1), and 340(2) of the BNS.

Applying the Neeharika Infrastructure and Sharla Bazliel precedents, the Court reasoned that it should not substitute its judgment for the investigating agency when facts are "hazy" and the accused is not cooperating with the police.

The Court found that because the matter involves documentary evidence and potential forgery, the "interest of justice" is better served by allowing the police to complete the investigation rather than quashing the FIR based on a partial financial settlement.

The Court found that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the threshold when investigation into allegations of forgery is ongoing.

Consequently, the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.