High Court may quash non-compoundable private offences following a verified bona fide compromise.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR/Crime No. 512/2025 registered at Police Station Dindori, District Dindori, for alleged offences under Sections 69, 78(1)(i), 79 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000

During the proceedings, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 entered into an amicable settlement and filed I.A. No. 18432/2026 seeking acceptance of the compromise

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the compromise was verified by the Registrar (Judicial-II). Both parties appeared in person, were identified by counsel, and stated that the settlement was voluntary, genuine and free from coercion, inducement or undue influence

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties, notwithstanding the alleged non-compoundable offences

Whether, in view of the compromise and the private nature of the dispute, continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law

It relied on the principle stated by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, that criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly private or personal, the parties have genuinely settled the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuation of the proceedings would be oppressive, unjust or an abuse of process

The Court also applied the requirement that the compromise must be bona fide, voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence

The Court accepted the Registrar’s verification report confirming that the parties had voluntarily and genuinely resolved their dispute

On examining the allegations, the FIR and the material on record, it found that the dispute was essentially private and personal and did not involve any overriding element of public interest

Applying the principles in Gian Singh, the Court concluded that the compromise materially reduced the likelihood of conviction and that continuing the prosecution despite the settlement would amount to an abuse of the process of law

I.A. No. 18432/2026 seeking leave to compound the offences was allowed

The petition was consequently allowed, and FIR/Crime No. 512/2025, together with all consequential criminal proceedings, was quashed. The petitioner was discharged from the charges, and any bail bonds stood discharged