Criminal Process Cannot Be Weaponised When Dispute Is Resolved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

"The substratum of the criminal offence no longer survives — continuation would only serve as a tool of oppression", In a significant judgment interpreting the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under multiple provisions of the new penal law, holding that the incident arose out of a personal misunderstanding and that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the criminal process.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj allowing the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 113 dated 09.08.2024, registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar, under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 191(3), and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on the strength of a compromise arrived at with the complainant.

"Personal animosity resolved amicably – criminal law should not be used to perpetuate grievances that no longer exist"

At the heart of the case was an altercation involving an elderly factory worker, Gian Chand, who was allegedly attacked by multiple young men while returning home from work. The FIR narrated that he was stopped by two vehicles—one motorcycle and an Activa scooter—whose occupants allegedly assaulted him with a datar and caused injuries, following which he was taken to the hospital by his son. The complainant claimed the incident stemmed from certain individuals being upset over his continued employment at the factory.

However, with the intervention of “respectables of both sides,” a settlement dated 02.06.2025 was reached voluntarily, without coercion, and duly recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate. All accused persons, the complainant, and the injured party were part of the compromise. The report by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Amritsar, confirmed the genuineness of the compromise, the absence of pressure, and the non-existence of any pending criminal proceedings (except for two old cases against one accused).

"No element of moral depravity or public outrage — criminal law cannot be dragged endlessly for private squabbles"

Justice Bhardwaj emphasized that while the High Court has wide inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC), such powers must be cautiously exercised. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Court underlined that “the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, and in personal disputes, the possibility of conviction, and whether the trial would serve any real purpose.”

It was reiterated that “heinous offences, offences involving mental depravity, or having serious impact on society cannot be quashed even if compromised. But in cases lacking such characteristics, especially when the complainant himself wishes to move on, the courts are justified in stepping in to prevent unnecessary criminalisation.”

The Court found no public interest element, no moral turpitude, and no deep-rooted criminal intent in the incident. “The altercation stemmed from a momentary flare-up,” the Court noted, adding that “nothing in the FIR suggested a premeditated or heinous crime.”

"When the chances of conviction are negligible, and the trial will merely waste judicial time, courts must not shy away from quashing proceedings"

Highlighting that seven of the petitioners were young—some in their early twenties—and stood to suffer irreparable consequences in their personal and professional lives if the case lingered, the Court observed:

"The criminal process is not designed to be a tool of harassment, particularly when the foundation of the dispute stands eroded by a voluntary and bona fide compromise. Judicial time should not be expended on proceedings that have lost their very cause."

The Court noted that the trial, if allowed to proceed, would serve no larger public interest, especially when the complainant was unlikely to support the prosecution case.

"FIR quashed, but not without consequence — Rule of Law demands responsibility"

While allowing the petition, the Court imposed costs of ₹7,500 on each petitioner, to be deposited with the District Health and Family Welfare Society (DHFWS), Panchkula, within two months.

Justice Bhardwaj concluded: "When private litigants have mutually resolved their grievances, and no purpose is served by dragging the accused through the rigours of a criminal trial, the High Court must act to secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of the process of law."

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025