MP High Court quashes BNS Section 69 case after parties settle, citing bleak chances of conviction

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered at Crime No. 58/2026 at Tukoganj Police Station, Indore, for an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential proceedings, relying on a compromise with the complainant.

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

The complainant supported the petition, while the State opposed it.

The petitioner acknowledged that the offence was non-compoundable but sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash an FIR for a non-compoundable offence under Section 69 BNS on the basis of a verified compromise.

Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the compromise and the asserted bleak prospect of conviction justified quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Ramavtar v. State of M.P., Jagdish Channa v. State of Haryana, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab and Shiji v. Radhika for the principle that criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences may, in appropriate cases, be quashed following a compromise.

Under State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, this power is generally unsuitable for heinous or serious offences with a substantial societal impact, though the nature of the offence and circumstances remain relevant.

Relying on Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court also considered the sufficiency of evidence, the likelihood of conviction, the stage of proceedings, and whether settlement would restore harmony between the parties.

The Court considered the Registrar’s verification of the voluntary compromise, the complainant’s support for quashing, and the parties’ settlement and resumed good relations.

It concluded that the dispute was between the parties, that allowing it to continue could disrupt their relationship, and that the prospect of conviction was remote and bleak in view of the compromise.

On that basis, it found this an appropriate case to exercise its power under Section 528 BNSS, notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of the offence.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.