FIR QUASHED UNDER SECTION 528 BNSS AS CIVIL DISPUTE SETTLED AMICABLY BETWEEN PARTIES

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 212 of 2020 registered at Chutia P.S. for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

While the investigation was still pending and prior to the submission of a charge sheet, the petitioner and the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed Interlocutory Application No. 1917 of 2026.

Both parties submitted affidavits stating they had settled the dispute amicably outside of court and that the matter was essentially civil in nature.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash an FIR involving non-compoundable offences based on a private settlement between the parties.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in a dispute of a predominantly civil nature, following a compromise, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

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

It relied heavily on the principles established in *Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another* (2017) 9 SCC 641.

The court relied on *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab* (2012) 10 SCC 303.

These precedents establish that while heinous crimes cannot be quashed via settlement, cases with "overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour" arising from commercial or financial transactions may be quashed if the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation would cause extreme injustice.

The Court observed that the offences alleged (Sections 406 and 420 IPC) were neither heinous nor involved "mental depravity," such as murder or rape.

By examining the record and the joint submissions of the parties, the Court determined that the dispute was essentially a civil matter arising from a misunderstanding that had since been resolved through a valid compromise.

Applying the *Parbatbhai Aahir* test, the Court reasoned that because a settlement had been reached and no public policy was at stake, the chances of conviction were "remote and bleak."

Consequently, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would serve no legal purpose and would instead cause undue hardship and oppression to the petitioner.

The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed FIR Chutia P.S. Case No. 212 of 2020.

Interlocutory Application No. 1917 of 2026 was disposed of accordingly.