FIR Quashed under BNSS Section 528 for Non-Heinous Private Offences Following Amicable Settlement and Compromise

The petitioner was accused of trespass, attempted rape, assault, and criminal intimidation under Sections 64(1), 62, 332(b), 115(2), and 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, following an incident where he allegedly entered the informant’s house in her husband's absence.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties filed Interlocutory Application No. 4998 of 2026, supported by affidavits, stating that they had amicably settled the dispute through a notarized agreement.

They claimed the incident arose from a business misunderstanding.

The petitioner moved the High Court to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on this compromise.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving allegations of attempted rape based on a private compromise between the parties.

The Court applied Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.), which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

It relied heavily on the landmark precedent Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur Others vs. State of Gujarat Another (2017), which established that while heinous crimes like rape or murder cannot generally be quashed through compromise, the Court may do so in private or personal disputes where the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of the case would cause extreme injustice.

The Court observed that despite the initial allegations involving Section 64(1) of the B.N.S. (attempted rape), the specific facts revealed the dispute was essentially private in nature, originating from a prior business conflict.

The Court noted that the formal charges did not fully correspond to the allegations made in the FIR.

Given the notarized settlement and the restored "good relations" between the parties, the Court reasoned that the victim was unlikely to support the prosecution, making the prospect of conviction "remote and bleak".

The Court determined that forcing the petitioner to undergo trial despite a full settlement would constitute an "abuse of the process of law" and result in "extreme injustice".

The High Court allowed the petition [para. 11], quashing and setting aside the FIR and all subsequent proceedings of Kumardungi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025.

All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.