Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Delhi High Court recently quashed an FIR registered under serious non-compoundable offences, including Sections 394 and 397 IPC, at the latter stages of trial. The judgment underscores the Court’s reformative approach and its commitment to securing justice even beyond the rigid confines of statutory compounding.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Nitin Chindaliya, was accused of robbery and assault involving a knife, allegedly causing a “simple sharp” injury and theft of ₹1,500. The FIR was registered at P.S. Govind Puri, and a charge sheet followed under Sections 394, 397, 411, and 34 IPC. The complainant later executed a Compromise/Settlement Deed and expressed his desire to withdraw from the prosecution.
The case was argued on behalf of the petitioner by Advocate Sumit Misra, who submitted that the dispute was personal in nature, the injury was minor, and the complainant’s voluntary forgiveness warranted judicial intervention. The petitioner’s reformatory conduct, lack of criminal antecedents, and difficult family circumstances — including being the sole breadwinner for a disabled father — were also highlighted.
Judicial Reasoning
Justice Sanjeev Narula, while allowing the petition, relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in:
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
- Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531
- The Court reiterated that:
“The High Court, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute… can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, even if the offences are non-compoundable.”
It was noted that while the offences were serious, they did not rise to the level of heinous or morally depraved conduct. The injury was not grievous, no independent eyewitnesses were found, and the complainant’s decision to settle was free from coercion. The Court emphasized that continuation of proceedings would serve no public purpose and risk misuse of process.
Justice Narula’s decision reflects a deeply humanitarian approach to criminal adjudication — one that looks beyond the rigidity of statutory provisions and into the lived realities of the parties involved. By acknowledging the petitioner’s youth, lack of prior convictions, financial hardship, and role as sole caregiver to a disabled parent, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS not merely to quash a proceeding, but to restore dignity. The judgment affirms that justice is not only about punishing wrongs, but also about recognizing when continued prosecution serves no rehabilitative or societal purpose.
Section 528 BNSS: Unfettered Powers of the High Court
Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) empowers the High Court to quash proceedings “to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The judgment clarifies that this power is not constrained by the compoundability of offences under Section 320 CrPC.
Even in non-cognizable and non-compoundable cases, the High Court may intervene where:
- The dispute is private in nature
- The compromise is genuine and voluntary
- The accused shows reformatory conduct
- The continuation of trial serves no public interest
This case sets a precedent for invoking Section 528 BNSS at advanced stages of trial, even post-charge sheet, where justice demands a pragmatic and compassionate approach.
Implications for Future Litigation
This ruling opens the door for litigants and counsel to seek relief under Section 528 BNSS in cases where:
- The offence, though serious, lacks public dimension
- The victim and accused have reconciled
- The accused demonstrates genuine reform
- The prosecution is unlikely to yield meaningful justice
It also signals a shift toward restorative justice, where courts balance legal rigor with human realities — especially in cases involving young or first-time offenders.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
