Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides: “Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” This provision preserves the inherent powers that were earlier available under Section 482 CrPC.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab clarified: “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable.” Compounding is governed by Section 320 CrPC and is limited to specified offences, while quashing under Section 482 CrPC (now 528 BNSS) is guided by whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power [citation:7][citation:18].

No. The Supreme Court has held that the power is “of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.” It is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal laid down categories of cases where the inherent power can be exercised, including: (1) where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence; (2) where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence; (3) where uncontroverted allegations do not disclose commission of an offence; (4) where allegations are absurd and inherently improbable; (5) where there is an express legal bar; and (6) where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide [citation:6].

Section 354 IPC provides: “Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine” [citation:4].

Section 354A IPC defines sexual harassment to include: (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks. The punishment varies depending on the clause violated [citation:5].

No. Neither Section 354 nor Section 354A is listed in the table of compoundable offences under Section 320 CrPC. They are non-compoundable offences. However, the High Court can still quash proceedings involving these offences under its inherent powers if the facts and circumstances justify it.

Yes, in appropriate cases. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent decisions has held that the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of settlement between the parties, particularly where the dispute is private in nature and no public interest is adversely affected [citation:7][citation:16].

The legal basis is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this power is not limited by Section 320 CrPC and can be exercised to quash even non-compoundable offences where the ends of justice require it [citation:7][citation:18].

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh held: “The guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.” The court must consider whether continuation of criminal proceedings would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice, or tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement between the victim and the wrongdoer.

The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab held that criminal cases having “overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.” Offences that are heinous and serious, like murder, rape, and dacoity, cannot be quashed [citation:10].

The court considers: (1) the nature and gravity of the offence; (2) whether the offence is private in nature or has a serious impact on society; (3) whether the dispute is predominantly civil in character; (4) whether the parties have genuinely settled their disputes; (5) whether the victim has voluntarily consented to the quashing; and (6) whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose.

In Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354/354A IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act after the parties, who were real uncle and niece, resolved their misunderstanding. The court held: “The dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved and that the misunderstanding, which led to the registration of FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties” [citation:8].

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 held: “The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court” [citation:7][citation:18].

The key principle is that the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings, or whether continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer. If the answer is in the affirmative, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court held: “The criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”

The Supreme Court held: “Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.”

The Delhi High Court has applied Gian Singh in numerous cases involving Sections 354 and 354A IPC, quashing FIRs where the parties had amicably settled their disputes. In cases like Ramesh v. State, Deepak Verma v. State, and several others, the court has relied on Gian Singh to quash proceedings after finding that the disputes were personal in nature and had been genuinely resolved [citation:8][citation:14].

The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 laid down the following principles: (1) Power under Section 482 is to be distinguished from compounding under Section 320; (2) The power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution; (3) The guiding factor is to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; (4) Such power is not to be exercised in heinous and serious offences; (5) Criminal cases having predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes [citation:10].

The Supreme Court held: “On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence. Offences that are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society are more amenable to quashing on settlement, while heinous offences cannot be quashed [citation:10].

While Sections 354 and 354A IPC are serious offences, courts have recognized that when they arise from personal disputes, matrimonial discord, or misunderstandings between parties known to each other, and the parties have genuinely resolved their differences, the continuation of criminal proceedings may serve no useful purpose. The Delhi High Court has applied these principles in several cases to quash such FIRs [citation:8][citation:9][citation:16].

In Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 305/2014 registered under Sections 354/354A IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. The ground for quashing was that the misunderstanding, which led to the registration of the FIR, had been cleared between the parties, who were real uncle and niece [citation:8].

Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) appeared in court and submitted that the dispute between the parties had been amicably resolved and that the misunderstanding, which led to the registration of the FIR, now stood cleared. She affirmed the contents of the Compromise Deed and her affidavit supporting the petition. She submitted that the misunderstanding with the petitioner stood cleared and that to restore cordiality between the parties, who are related to each other, the proceedings arising out of the FIR should be brought to an end [citation:8].

Justice Sunil Gaur, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat which reiterated the parameters for exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. The court noted that the parties had amicably resolved their disputes and that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings [citation:8].

The Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 summarized the broad principles: (1) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice; (2) The invocation of jurisdiction to quash on the ground of settlement is not the same as compounding; (3) The High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of inherent power; (4) The power has to be exercised to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; (5) The decision depends on the facts and circumstances of each case [citation:8].

The decision illustrates that even offences under Sections 354 and 354A IPC, which are non-compoundable, can be quashed when the dispute is genuinely private in nature, arises from a misunderstanding between parties known to each other, and has been amicably resolved. The court emphasized the importance of restoring cordiality between parties who are related to each other [citation:8].

In the context of quashing, a “misunderstanding” refers to a situation where the complainant and the accused had a genuine misapprehension or miscommunication that resulted in the filing of a criminal complaint, but the parties have since realized that the dispute was based on a mistake or that their differences have been resolved. The Delhi High Court has quashed FIRs in several cases where the parties submitted that the “misunderstanding” between them had been cleared [citation:8][citation:10].

The court typically speaks with the complainant directly, either in person or through video conferencing, to ascertain whether the settlement is voluntary and genuine. The court also examines the Compromise Deed or Settlement Agreement, and ensures that the complainant is not under any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. In Ramesh, the court noted that the complainant affirmed the contents of the Compromise Deed and her affidavit [citation:8].

The complainant’s statement is crucial. The court must be satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily resolved the dispute and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The court in Ramesh noted that the complainant submitted that the misunderstanding stood cleared and that to restore cordiality, the proceedings should be brought to an end [citation:8].

While the complainant’s consent is an important factor, it is not the sole determining factor. The court must independently assess whether the ends of justice require quashing. However, where the complainant objects to the quashing, the court is less likely to exercise its discretion in favor of quashing, particularly in cases involving serious offences.

The parties should typically execute a Compromise Deed, Settlement Agreement, or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recording the terms of the settlement. The complainant may also file an affidavit supporting the petition for quashing. In Ramesh, the respondent affirmed the contents of the Compromise Deed dated 3rd December, 2018, and her affidavit of the same date supporting the petition [citation:8].

A valid settlement should be: (1) voluntary, without any force, fraud, or coercion; (2) supported by a written agreement; (3) affirmed by the complainant before the court; (4) free from monetary considerations in appropriate cases; and (5) entered into with a clear understanding of the consequences. The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the settlement should be genuine and not a sham [citation:8][citation:10].

Yes, monetary consideration can be part of the settlement, but it is not a requirement. The court is concerned with whether the settlement is genuine and whether the parties have truly resolved their disputes. In some cases, the court may also direct the petitioner to deposit costs with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority or the Advocates Welfare Fund as a condition for quashing [citation:1][citation:3].

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), is typically asked for its position. If the State has no objection to the quashing, it supports the petitioner’s case. In Ramesh, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the complainant was present in court and had been identified by the police officer [citation:8]. The State’s no-objection is a significant factor but is not binding on the court.

If the settlement is challenged or if the court finds that it was obtained through coercion or fraud, the court will not quash the proceedings. The court must be satisfied that the settlement is genuine and that the complainant is voluntarily agreeing to the quashing. The court in Ramesh noted that the complainant submitted that the misunderstanding stood cleared and that she had no objection to the quashing [citation:8].

The first step is to engage with the complainant, preferably through counsel, to reach a genuine settlement. The settlement should address the underlying dispute and should be recorded in writing. The petitioner should ensure that the settlement is voluntary and free from any coercion.

The parties should execute a Compromise Deed, Settlement Agreement, or Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recording the terms of the settlement. This document should be signed by both parties and, if possible, witnessed. The agreement should clearly state that the parties have resolved their disputes and that the complainant has no objection to the quashing of the FIR.

The petitioner should file a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or Section 482 CrPC, depending on the applicable law at the time), seeking quashing of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom. The petition should be accompanied by the settlement agreement and an affidavit from the complainant supporting the quashing.

The complainant should appear before the court, either in person or through video conferencing, to confirm the settlement. The court will typically speak with the complainant to ensure that the settlement is voluntary and genuine. In Ramesh, the complainant appeared before the court and affirmed the contents of the Compromise Deed [citation:8].

The court may direct the petitioner to deposit costs with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority or the Advocates Welfare Fund as a condition for quashing. In Satkar Dabas v. State, the court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000 each with the Advocates Welfare Fund [citation:1]. In FIR No. 66/2021, the court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority [citation:3].

Before agreeing to a settlement, consider whether the settlement is genuine and voluntary. You should not agree to a settlement under any pressure, coercion, or undue influence. If you feel pressured, you should inform the court during the hearing.

It is advisable to consult a lawyer before signing any settlement agreement or compromise deed. A lawyer can advise you on the legal consequences of the settlement and ensure that your interests are protected.

If the FIR is quashed, the criminal proceedings come to an end. The accused will not face trial or conviction for the offences alleged. You should understand that quashing is final and cannot be reversed.

The court will typically speak with you directly to ascertain your position. You should be prepared to state whether you have voluntarily settled the dispute and whether you have any objection to the quashing of the FIR. In Ramesh, the complainant submitted that the misunderstanding stood cleared and that she had no objection to the quashing [citation:8].

If you agree to a settlement, ensure that the terms are recorded in writing and that you receive a copy of the agreement. The agreement should clearly state what you are agreeing to and what the accused is agreeing to.

The consequences for the accused/petitioner include: (1) the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed; (2) the accused will not face trial or conviction for the offences alleged; (3) the criminal record is effectively cleared in respect of the quashed FIR; (4) the accused may be required to pay costs to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority or Advocates Welfare Fund; and (5) the accused is restored to the position he would have been in had the FIR not been registered [citation:1][citation:3].

The consequences for the complainant include: (1) the criminal proceedings come to an end; (2) the complainant cannot subsequently pursue the same criminal case; (3) the complainant may be bound by the terms of the settlement; and (4) if the settlement involved monetary consideration, the complainant may receive or have received such consideration.

No. Once an FIR is quashed by the High Court, it cannot be revived. The quashing is final and binding. However, if the quashing was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the court may recall its order.

While quashing does not erase the fact that an FIR was registered, it effectively clears the accused of the offences alleged. The accused cannot be prosecuted for the same offences based on the quashed FIR. The accused can truthfully state that the FIR has been quashed by the High Court.

The court has discretion to impose costs as a condition for quashing. The costs are typically deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority or the Advocates Welfare Fund. The amount varies depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In Satkar Dabas, the cost was Rs. 10,000 per petitioner [citation:1]. In another case, it was Rs. 25,000 [citation:3].

Compounding is governed by Section 320 CrPC and is limited to specified offences. Quashing under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is the inherent power of the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding, including non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process [citation:7][citation:18].

Yes, the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 354 IPC on the basis of settlement if it is satisfied that the dispute is private in nature, the parties have genuinely resolved their differences, and the ends of justice require quashing. The Delhi High Court has done so in several cases [citation:2][citation:8].

Yes, similar to Section 354, the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 354A IPC on the basis of settlement if the facts and circumstances justify it. The power is not limited by the fact that the offence is non-compoundable [citation:3][citation:10].

The leading authorities are Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. These decisions lay down the principles and guidelines for the High Court in exercising its power to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement [citation:7][citation:10].

In Ramesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Delhi High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 354/354A IPC and Section 12 POCSO Act after the parties, who were real uncle and niece, resolved their misunderstanding. The court held that the dispute had been amicably resolved and that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings [citation:8].

The complainant’s role is crucial. The court must be satisfied that the complainant has voluntarily resolved the dispute and has no objection to the quashing of the FIR. The complainant typically appears before the court to confirm the settlement. The court speaks with the complainant to ensure that the settlement is genuine and free from coercion [citation:8].

Where the complainant objects to the quashing, the court is less likely to exercise its discretion in favor of quashing, particularly in cases involving serious offences. However, the court must independently assess whether the ends of justice require quashing, and the complainant’s objection is not necessarily conclusive.

The documents typically required include: (1) a Compromise Deed or Settlement Agreement signed by both parties; (2) an affidavit from the complainant supporting the quashing; (3) the petition under Section 528 BNSS; and (4) any other supporting documents, such as the FIR copy and chargesheet [citation:8].

The court may direct the petitioner to deposit costs with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority or the Advocates Welfare Fund. The amount varies depending on the facts and circumstances. In one case, the cost was Rs. 10,000 per petitioner [citation:1]; in another, it was Rs. 25,000 [citation:3].

Quashing effectively clears the accused of the offences alleged in the quashed FIR. The accused cannot be prosecuted for the same offences based on the quashed FIR. The accused can truthfully state that the FIR has been quashed by the High Court.

The State has the right to appeal against a quashing order. However, if the State has already given its no-objection to the quashing, it is less likely to appeal. The State’s no-objection is a significant factor but is not binding on the court.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh held that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is distinct from the power to compound offences. The High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings, or whether continuation would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement [citation:7][citation:18].

The Supreme Court in Narinder Singh laid down principles for quashing on settlement, including that criminal cases having predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes. Heinous offences cannot be quashed [citation:10].

The “misunderstanding” in Ramesh refers to a genuine misapprehension or miscommunication that led to the registration of the FIR, which the parties subsequently resolved. The complainant submitted that the misunderstanding stood cleared between the parties, who were related to each other [citation:8].

Yes, quashing can be sought at any stage of the proceedings, including after the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. The court’s power is not limited by the stage of the proceedings. However, the court may consider the stage of the proceedings in exercising its discretion.

The initial report registered by the police upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It sets the criminal justice process in motion.

The act of the High Court annulling or setting aside an FIR, complaint, or criminal proceeding, thereby bringing it to an end before or during trial.

The process by which a victim and offender settle a criminal case, governed by Section 320 CrPC, which lists the compoundable offences.

The powers of the High Court preserved under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court.

The offence of assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty. Punishable with imprisonment of 1 to 5 years and fine.

The offence of sexual harassment, including physical contact with unwelcome sexual overtures, demand for sexual favours, showing pornography, and making sexually coloured remarks.

A written agreement between parties recording the terms of their settlement of a dispute, which may be used to support a petition for quashing.

Another term for a compromise deed, recording the mutual agreement of parties to resolve their dispute.

A genuine mistake, miscommunication, or misapprehension that led to the filing of a criminal complaint, which the parties have subsequently resolved.

The leading Supreme Court decision on quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of settlement, distinguishing quashing from compounding.

A Supreme Court decision laying down principles for quashing on settlement, including that disputes of predominantly civil character should be quashed when parties have resolved their disputes.

The broader societal interest in ensuring that justice is done and that the legal system is not abused by frivolous or vexatious proceedings.