FIR Quashed Under BNSS Section 528 Following Private Settlement of Non-Compoundable Cheating and Forgery Offences.

The petitioner, Rahul Singhania, was accused of cheating and forgery in Crime No. 04/2016, leading to criminal trial RCT No. 902/2018 at the Court of the 16th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal.

During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner and the complainant (Respondent No. 2) reached a private settlement and filed a joint application for compromise.

On 11.03.2026, the Registrar (Judicial-II) verified that the compromise was entered into voluntarily and without inducement, although the underlying offences were non-compoundable.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashment of the proceedings based on this settlement.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences on the ground of a private settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal trial against the petitioner, following a compromise in a matter predominantly private in nature, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

It relied heavily on the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, which established that while heinous crimes (e.g., murder, rape) or offences involving public interest cannot be quashed via compromise, the High Court may quash proceedings arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, or matrimonial disputes where the wrong is basically private and the possibility of conviction is remote due to the settlement.

The Court observed that the FIR was lodged over allegations of cheating and forgery directed specifically at the complainant, indicating that the dispute was private and did not involve public interest or heinous "mental depravity".

Upon reviewing the verification report from the Registrar (Judicial-II), the Court confirmed that the parties had resolved their disputes with free will.

Applying the Gian Singh guidelines, the Court reasoned that because the parties had settled, the likelihood of a successful conviction was now bleak.

Consequently, continuing the criminal trial would cause "oppression and prejudice" to the petitioner and would be contrary to the interests of justice.

The Court ordered that proceedings shall continue against other co-accused and directed that a copy of the order be sent to the trial court and the concerned Police Station.