High Court Quashes Non-Compoundable Personal Disputes Under Section 528 BNSS to Prevent Victim Trauma

The Applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash the charge-sheet dated 03.04.2026 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 739 of 2026 (State vs. Meharban and Others).

The case involved offences under Sections 70(1), 123, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 67 of the IT Act.

The parties filed a Joint Compounding Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2026) supported by affidavits, stating that they had amicably resolved their disputes.

While the Applicants were in judicial custody, Respondent No. 2 (the victim) appeared in person and expressed a desire to drop the proceedings to avoid further mental anguish.

The State opposed the quashing, citing the gravity of the offences and their societal impact.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings in grave/serious offences based on a voluntary compromise between the parties to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of law.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice (analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC).

Compounding of offences under Sections 70(1), 123, and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Even in serious cases, proceedings may be quashed if the victim voluntarily enters a settlement and continuation would cause further mental trauma without a likelihood of conviction.

The Court interacted directly with Respondent No. 2 to verify the authenticity of the settlement.

Despite the State’s objection regarding the "grave and serious" nature of the allegations, the Court found that the victim's statement was made voluntarily and without coercion.

The Court reasoned that since the victim did not wish to pursue the matter to avoid reviving traumatic memories and further mental agony, the continuation of the trial would serve no useful purpose.

Consequently, the Court determined that quashing the proceedings was necessary to "secure the ends of justice" and "prevent abuse of the process of law" under the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court held that in light of the voluntary settlement, the criminal proceedings should not continue.

The Court ordered the immediate release of the Applicants from judicial custody, provided they are not required in any other case, and disposed of the application under Section 528 BNSS.