Uttarakhand HC Quashes Non-Compoundable BNS Conspiracy Case Against Man Accused Of Buying Train Tickets, Citing Settlement And Limited Role

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, despite the parties’ settlement

The court held

The Court allowed the compounding application and, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, quashed the proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2025 under Section 61(2) of the BNS insofar as they related to the applicant

It also directed

The criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of, along with any pending applications

01Facts

The applicant sought to quash, insofar as it concerned him, proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2025 under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), pending before the Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)/Sessions Judge, Champawat

¶ 2

The applicant’s alleged role was limited to purchasing railway tickets and helping the victim and co-accused board a train

¶ 5, 7

The victim, who had attained majority during the proceedings, stated that she knew the applicant as a neighbour and did not wish to pursue the matter

¶ 5–6, 12

The parties filed a settlement and compounding application; the State opposed it on the ground that the offence was non-compoundable

¶ 3, 9

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could quash proceedings for a non-compoundable offence under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, despite the parties’ settlement

¶ 10

ii.Whether, in the circumstances of this case, continuing the proceedings against the applicant would serve the ends of justice

¶ 12

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice; the non-compoundable character of an offence does not by itself bar quashing, but the power must be exercised according to settled principles

¶ 11

Relying on 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 stated that relevant considerations include the offence’s nature and gravity, the circumstances in which the dispute arose, the accused’s role, and whether quashing would secure the ends of justice

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 61

04Reasoning

The Court considered the applicant’s limited alleged role, the absence of any specifically attributed act constituting abetment, the victim’s statements, and the voluntary nature of the settlement

¶ 6–8, 12

It treated the victim’s attainment of majority and her unwillingness to pursue the matter as relevant circumstances, but not conclusive grounds in themselves

¶ 12

Applying the principles governing inherent jurisdiction, the Court found that quashing the proceedings against this applicant was warranted notwithstanding the offence’s non-compoundable status

¶ 11–13