MP HC Quashes Robbery FIR Against One Accused After Settlement With Complainant, Though Trial Evidence Had Begun

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 1421/2024 and all consequential proceedings arising from it, insofar as they related to the petitioner, on the basis of the compromise.

It also directed

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of the FIR registered as Crime No. 1421/2024 at Police Station Lasudia, Indore, for an offence under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on the basis of a compromise with the complainant, Neelam.

¶ 1

The Principal Registrar verified the compromise and reported that it was voluntary and free from threat, inducement or coercion.

¶ 2

Another accused was named in the FIR but was not part of the compromise.

¶ 2

The complainant’s evidence had commenced: two witnesses had been examined, with further evidence and completion of trial pending.

¶ 2

The complainant’s counsel did not oppose the petition, while the State opposed it.

¶ 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the parties’ compromise.

¶ 1, 10–11

ii.Whether the compromise and the circumstances of the case justified quashing notwithstanding the State’s opposition and the fact that trial evidence had begun.

¶ 2–5, 10

03Law Applied

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice.

¶ 6

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P., and other authorities for the principle that proceedings for non-compoundable offences may, in appropriate cases, be quashed following a compromise.

¶ 6

Under State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, this power is generally suited to disputes with a predominantly private or civil character and should not be used merely on compromise for heinous or serious offences, or offences under special statutes/public-servant offences.

¶ 8

Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi directs courts to consider, among other matters, whether the evidence supports the charge, whether settlement may restore harmony, and the stage of proceedings.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 309

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 320

04Reasoning

The Court considered the Registrar’s verification that the compromise was voluntary, the complainant’s non-opposition, and the parties’ settlement and resumed good relations.

¶ 2–3, 5, 10

It concluded that there was a remote and bleak possibility of conviction and that continuing the dispute risked disrupting the parties’ relationship; quashing would promote harmony and serve the interests of justice.

¶ 10

Although evidence had begun, the trial was incomplete, and the Court considered the settlement and the circumstances sufficient to exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS.

¶ 2, 10