FIR may be quashed qua an accused after settlement where investigation finds no knowing participation in wider fraud.

Respondent no. 2 alleged that she was induced through WhatsApp to invest in the stock market and transferred ₹3,35,805 in six transactions.

One of the accounts receiving the money belonged to the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR but was traced during the investigation.

The petitioner maintained that his account was used without his knowledge or consent and that he received no benefit.

The parties entered into a compromise; respondent no. 2 confirmed that it was voluntary and that she had received consideration under it.

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0098/2025, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the proceedings arising from it under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the FIR and proceedings under Section 318(4) BNS should be quashed qua the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS in light of the parties’ compromise.

Whether the petitioner’s circumstances and the investigation supported quashing the proceedings despite the allegation that his account received part of the defrauded amount.

Section 528 BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court.

The FIR invoked Section 318(4) BNS, concerning cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

The judgment cites no precedent or further legal test; it rests its decision on the compromise, the State’s lack of opposition, and the case-specific findings recorded by the Court.

The Court accepted the compromise after respondent no. 2 confirmed that it was voluntary and that she had received consideration.

The Investigating Officer stated that the investigation was complete and disclosed no knowing participation by the petitioner in an organised scheme affecting other victims.

In light of those circumstances, and the State’s non-opposition, the Court concluded that continuing proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would cause disproportionate prejudice to the petitioner.