Offence of Abetment of Suicide Cannot Be Quashed Based on Compromise Due to Its Serious Societal Impact

The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR Crime No. 446/2025 registered at Police Station Kolaras for an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that on December 3, 2025, one Parmanand was found hanging from a tree; subsequent witness statements implicated the petitioners, leading to allegations of abetment of suicide.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners and the complainant (respondent No. 2) entered into an amicable settlement and filed a joint application (I.A. No. 4038/2026) for compounding the matter.

The Principal Registrar verified that the compromise was voluntary and without coercion.

1. Whether a criminal proceeding involving the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS can be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS solely on the basis of a private compromise between the parties.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

The court relied on the landmark precedents of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), and Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022), which establish that while private or personal disputes may be quashed upon compromise, "serious and heinous offences" or those having "serious social ramifications" cannot be quashed as they affect society at large rather than being purely private in nature.

The court reasoned that although Section 528 of the BNSS grants wide inherent powers, such powers must be exercised with "great caution".

In assessing the nature of the offence, the court determined that an allegation under Section 108 of the BNS (Abetment of suicide) is a grave matter involving the loss of life and is not a dispute of a "purely private character" or "civil flavour".

The court observed that criminal law serves to protect societal interests and public confidence in the justice system; therefore, a private settlement cannot "efface the criminality" or override the public interest in prosecuting serious crimes.

The court concluded that the impact on the social fabric outweighs the individual agreement to settle.

The High Court rejected the compromise application (I.A. No. 4038/2026) and dismissed the petition.

The court clarified that the trial shall proceed independently on its merits without being prejudiced by these observations.