Uttarakhand HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Daily-Wage Co-Workers After Settlement Over Trivial Altercation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the settlement between the applicants and respondent no. 2 warranted quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The court held

The Court allowed the application under Section 528 of the BNSS and took the settlement on record.

It also directed

It quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1040 of 2026 qua the applicants.

The application and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The applicants sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 352 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), together with the charge-sheet, cognizance order and related criminal proceedings.

¶ 2

The applicants and respondent no. 2, daily-wage earners who worked together, stated that the case arose from a trivial dispute and that they had amicably settled it.

¶ 4, 6–8

Respondent no. 2 appeared before the Court, confirmed the settlement and stated that he did not wish to pursue the prosecution.

¶ 4, 6–8

The State opposed the application to compound the dispute.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the settlement between the applicants and respondent no. 2 warranted quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶ 9–12

ii.2. Whether, in light of the nature of the dispute and the alleged offences, continuing the proceedings would serve any useful purpose or advance the ends of justice.

¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to give effect to the BNSS, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice.

¶ 2

Applying Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Court noted that settlement does not by itself justify quashing. The Court must independently consider the nature and gravity of the offences, the circumstances in which the dispute arose, and the effect of quashing on the ends of justice.

¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 352 Section 109 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court found that the dispute arose from a trivial altercation between persons who worked together, and that respondent no. 2 had personally affirmed the settlement and his wish not to pursue the proceedings. It was satisfied that the settlement was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.

¶ 8, 11

Considering the circumstances and the applicable Supreme Court principles, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and that quashing would better secure the ends of justice.

¶ 10–12