High Court exercises inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash kidnapping FIR involving minor parties based on voluntary compromise.

The complainant reported that his minor daughter (the prosecutrix), aged 17 years and 6 months, went missing from their home on 04.12.2025.

Suspecting she had been lured away, an FIR was registered as Crime No. 83/2025 at Police Station Dipar, District Datia, under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioner, a juvenile aged 16 years and 6 months, sought quashment of the FIR after the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.

The factum of compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar, who confirmed that the prosecutrix, her father, and the petitioner entered into the agreement voluntarily without coercion.

1. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.] to quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

2. Whether the quashment of an FIR involving a minor is permissible when the dispute is personal in nature and the parties wish to settle to secure the ends of justice.

The Court primarily applied Section 528 of the BNSS regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on *Gian Singh v. State of Punjab*, which established that the High Court’s power to quash proceedings based on settlement is distinct from the power of compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

The Court referred to *State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan*, which clarified that while heinous crimes like rape or murder cannot be quashed via compromise, offences with a predominantly civil or personal character may be quashed to meet the ends of justice.

It further cited *Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab* and *Daxaben v. State of Gujarat*, affirming that inherent powers can be exercised for non-compoundable offences to prevent wasteful judicial exercise.

The Court observed that although the offence under Section 137(2) BNS (Kidnapping) is technically non-compoundable, the underlying nature of the dispute in this specific instance was personal.

The Court noted that the Principal Registrar had verified the statements of both the juvenile petitioner and the prosecutrix, ensuring the compromise was voluntary.

Applying the principles from *Laxmi Narayan*, the Court reasoned that since both the accused and the prosecutrix are of "tender age" and have resolved their differences, continuing the criminal prosecution would be a "futile exercise" and a "wasteful exercise by the courts".

The Court concluded that quashing the proceedings was necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of law, as no purpose would be served by a trial where the victim no longer supports the prosecution.

The Court allowed the petition, ordering that FIR Crime No. 83/2025 and all consequential proceedings be quashed.

However, the Court clarified that this order is based on specific facts and shall not be treated as a legal precedent.