Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Karthick, filed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.174 of 2024 registered at Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent, Ajithkumar, alleging that on 31.10.2024 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner threatened him with a sword at their workplace. The FIR registered on 01.11.2024 included offences under Sections 296(b), 125(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. During the pendency of the petition, the parties filed a Joint Memo of Compromise dated 13.12.2024, signed by the petitioner and the second respondent along with their counsel. Both parties appeared in person before the court and were identified by the Sub-Inspector of Police and counsel. The court enquired them and was satisfied that the compromise was genuine and voluntary. The court noted that the dispute was personal in nature and, following the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings even though the offences were not compoundable. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.174 of 2024 were quashed, and the terms of the compromise memo were made part of the order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences - Section 528 BNSS - The High Court has inherent power to quash an FIR even for non-compoundable offences where the dispute is personal in nature and the parties have genuinely compromised. The court relied on the guidelines in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat to hold that no useful purpose would be served by continuing proceedings. (Paras 6-8) B) Criminal Law - Offences under BNS and Arms Act - Sections 296(b), 125(b), 351(3) BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1A) Arms Act, 1959 - The FIR alleged that the petitioner threatened the de-facto complainant with a sword. The court quashed the proceedings after verifying the compromise and satisfaction of parties. (Paras 2-5, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR involving non-compoundable offences when the parties have compromised the dispute.
Final Decision
The Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.174 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent Police are quashed. The terms of the joint compromise memo dated 13.12.2024 shall form part and parcel of the order.
Law Points
- Inherent power to quash FIR
- compromise in non-compoundable offences
- personal nature of dispute
- guidelines in Gian Singh and Parbatbhai Aahir
