Can an FIR Be Quashed on the Basis of Compromise or Settlement? A Detailed Legal Analysis Under Section 528 BNSS
Introduction
In India, criminal proceedings often arise out of personal, family, matrimonial, or commercial disputes. While the criminal justice system is meant to punish offenders and protect society, it is frequently observed that FIRs are lodged as a pressure tactic to force settlement or to gain leverage in civil or matrimonial disputes. Over time, parties may realize that continuation of criminal proceedings serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the dispute has been amicably resolved.
This raises an important legal question: Can an FIR be quashed on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties?
The answer lies in the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the extensive judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. This article provides a detailed and authoritative explanation of whether, when, and how FIRs can be quashed on the basis of compromise, along with limitations, principles, and practical considerations.
Direct Answer to the Question
Yes, an FIR can be quashed by the High Court under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of compromise or settlement between the parties, even in non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is private in nature and the offence does not have a serious impact on society at large.
Legal Framework Governing Quashing on the Basis of Compromise
Section 528 BNSS: Inherent Powers of the High Court
Section 528 BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to:
- Prevent abuse of the process of any court, and
- Secure the ends of justice
This provision does not restrict the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings merely because the offence is non-compoundable under Section 359 BNSS.
Difference Between Compounding of Offences and Quashing of FIR
Understanding this distinction is essential.
Compounding Under Section 359 BNSS
- Permitted only for specific offences listed in the statute
- Can be done before the trial court
- Restricted to compoundable offences
Quashing Under Section 528 BNSS
- Exercised only by the High Court
- Applicable even to non-compoundable offences
- Based on judicial discretion and principles of justice
Quashing on the basis of compromise is not the same as compounding of offences.
Judicial Evolution of Law on Compromise-Based Quashing
The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in clarifying the law on this issue through landmark judgments.
Landmark Judgment: Gian Singh v. State of Punjab
In this seminal case, the Supreme Court held that:
- High Courts can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise
- The power is not limited by Section 359 BNSS
- Serious and heinous offences affecting society cannot be quashed merely because parties have settled
The Court emphasized the distinction between private disputes and offences against society.
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab: Detailed Guidelines
In Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines for quashing FIRs on compromise, including:
- The nature and gravity of the offence must be examined
- Heinous and serious offences should not be quashed
- Disputes arising out of matrimonial, family, or commercial relationships are suitable for quashing
- Timing of settlement is relevant
These guidelines continue to govern compromise-based quashing petitions across India.
Nature of Offences Eligible for Quashing on Compromise
Offences Commonly Quashed on Settlement
FIRs are frequently quashed in cases involving:
- Matrimonial disputes (Sections 85, 316(2) BNS, etc.)
- Family disputes
- Commercial and business transactions
- Property disputes between private individuals
- Cheque bounce-related disputes (in appropriate cases)
These disputes are considered predominantly private in nature.
Offences Generally Not Quashed on Compromise
The courts have consistently refused to quash FIRs involving:
- Murder
- Rape
- Dacoity
- Terrorism
- Corruption
- Offences under special statutes like NDPS and POCSO
Such offences are considered crimes against society and public interest outweighs private settlement.
Role of Consent and Free Will in Compromise
Voluntary Nature of Settlement
The High Court must be satisfied that:
- The compromise is genuine
- The settlement is voluntary
- There is no coercion, threat, or undue influence
Courts often direct personal appearance of parties to verify consent.
Stage of Proceedings and Compromise-Based Quashing
An FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise:
- Before investigation
- During investigation
- After filing of charge sheet
- Even during trial
However, as the case progresses, courts apply stricter scrutiny to ensure that justice is not compromised.
Procedure for Quashing FIR on the Basis of Compromise
The usual procedure includes:
- Execution of a written compromise deed
- Filing a petition under Section 528 BNSS
- Annexing affidavits of parties
- Issuance of notice to the State
- Verification of compromise by court
- Final order quashing FIR
The complainant is a necessary party in such petitions.
Role of the State in Compromise-Based Quashing
Even though the dispute is private:
- The State is always a party to the proceedings
- The Public Prosecutor assists the court
- The court independently assesses societal impact
Consent of the State is relevant but not decisive.
Impact of Compromise on Criminal Liability
Once an FIR is quashed on compromise:
- All criminal proceedings come to an end
- Accused is discharged from liability
- Trial court proceedings stand terminated
The quashing order has finality unless set aside by a higher court.
Why Courts Permit Compromise-Based Quashing
Courts recognize that:
- Criminal proceedings should not be used as bargaining tools
- Prolonged litigation serves no purpose when parties have settled
- Judicial resources must be conserved
- Restorative justice is sometimes more appropriate
This approach promotes peace and harmony between parties.
Limitations and Cautions in Compromise-Based Quashing
High Courts exercise caution to ensure:
- No serious offence is diluted
- Public interest is not sacrificed
- The compromise is bona fide
The power is discretionary and not automatic.
Practical Factors Considered by High Courts
While deciding compromise-based quashing, courts consider:
- Nature of offence
- Stage of proceedings
- Conduct of parties
- Possibility of conviction
- Impact on society
No single factor is decisive.
Misconceptions About Compromise-Based Quashing
- Non-compoundable offences can never be quashed
- Compromise is irrelevant after charge sheet
- Consent of complainant alone is sufficient
These misconceptions have been clarified and rejected by judicial precedents.
Importance of Proper Drafting and Legal Strategy
A successful compromise-based quashing petition requires:
- Clear articulation of private nature of dispute
- Genuine settlement documents
- Reliance on settled legal principles
Poor drafting often leads to dismissal despite settlement.
Conclusion
An FIR can indeed be quashed on the basis of compromise or settlement under Section 528 BNSS, even in non-compoundable offences, provided the dispute is private in nature and does not involve serious crimes affecting society at large. This extraordinary power of the High Court serves as a vital tool to prevent abuse of criminal law, reduce unnecessary litigation, and promote peaceful resolution of disputes.
However, this power is not unbridled. Courts carefully balance individual interests with societal concerns and ensure that justice is not compromised in the name of settlement. Compromise-based quashing reflects a pragmatic and restorative approach to criminal justice, recognizing that not all criminal proceedings deserve to continue once their underlying cause has been resolved.
Disclaimer: This information is intended for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult with a qualified lawyer for personalized advice specific to your situation.
Advocate J.S. Rohilla (Civil & Criminal Lawyer in Indore)
Contact: 88271 22304