Proceedings for abetment of suicide cannot ordinarily be quashed solely on the basis of compromise.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of FIR Crime No. 163/2025 registered at Police Station Banmore, District Morena, for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS, along with consequential proceedings in S.T. No. 319/2025, on the basis of a compromise.

The prosecution case arose from the death of Roshan, aged approximately 32 years, who allegedly consumed poison and died while being taken to Gwalior for treatment. During the merg enquiry, statements of the deceased’s sister and her husband were recorded, leading to a prima facie case against the petitioners and other accused for abetment of suicide and the related offence under Section 3(5) of the BNS.

The parties filed a compromise application supported by affidavits, and the Principal Registrar verified their identities, signatures, and the voluntary nature of the settlement.

The complainant supported quashing, while the State opposed it.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash proceedings for an alleged offence under Section 108 of the BNS on the basis of a compromise between the parties.

Whether the gravity and societal impact of the alleged abetment of suicide, together with the existence of a prima facie case and pending trial, disentitled the petitioners from obtaining quashing merely because the complainant and relatives of the deceased had settled the matter.

The Court applied Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, which confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, but requires that such power be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection.

It relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, for the rule that non-compoundable criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise where the dispute is essentially private or personal, but offences having a serious impact on society should not ordinarily be quashed merely because the parties have settled.

Section 108 of the BNS, concerning abetment of suicide, was treated as a grave and non-compoundable offence, while Section 3(5) of the BNS formed part of the offences alleged in the FIR.

The Court held that the allegations concerned the death of Roshan and an alleged abetment of his suicide, and therefore could not be characterised as a purely private dispute capable of being terminated solely by settlement.

Although the compromise was verified as voluntary and was supported by the complainant, that settlement did not extinguish the alleged criminality or override the societal interest involved in prosecuting a grave, non-compoundable offence.

The investigation material disclosed a prima facie case, and the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, was not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the evidence or determine the petitioners’ ultimate guilt or innocence; those matters were reserved for the Trial Court.

In view of the nature of the allegations, the death of the deceased, and the pendency of the trial, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

The petition was dismissed, and I.A. No. 7086/2026 seeking recognition of the compromise was rejected.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in the High Court’s order.