Badri Mandal vs State of Haryana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 20791

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties - Inherent powers of High Court - Scope - The High Court's inherent powers are distinct from compounding of offences; they are to be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. (Paras 7, 10-11)

(B) Penal Law - Cyber Fraud - Quashing on compromise - A private compromise in cases of cyber fraud does not cure the systemic damage to public trust in the digital ecosystem; such offences are not purely private in nature and have a serious impact on society. However, where allegations of cyber fraud are merely a premeditated hyperbole to artificially inflate gravity of an otherwise simpliciter pecuniary transaction, the court may still sanction a bona fide compromise. (Paras 12-12.2)

(C) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Guiding Principles - The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; heinous and serious offences affecting society, such as murder, rape, dacoity, and offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, are not to be quashed on compromise. Cases with a predominantly civil flavour may be quashed. The possibility of conviction being remote and bleak is a relevant factor. (Paras 9-11, 11.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused in an FIR registered for various sections of the BNS including those relating to cyber fraud involving unauthorized transactions of Rs.14,83,696/- from the complainant's bank account, sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of a compromise deed entered into with the complainant. The State counsel opposed the quashing, arguing that cyber fraud erodes public confidence in digital banking.

Findings of Court:
The court, after analyzing the law, held that an FIR for cyber fraud simpliciter cannot be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise, as it has a pervasive public detriment and systemic erosion of trust. However, an exception exists where the cyber fraud allegations are strategically invoked to lend gravity to an otherwise simple pecuniary transaction. In the present case, the facts revealed the offence to be a cyber fraud simpliciter, with no prior relationship between the parties. Consequently, the petition for quashing was dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether an FIR alleging cyber fraud can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between the rival private parties. (ii) The scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing criminal proceedings on compromise.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should not be exercised to quash an FIR for cyber fraud solely on compromise, as the offence causes public detriment and systemic harm beyond the private dispute. However, if the allegations of cyber fraud are a strategic exaggeration of a simple pecuniary dispute, the court may allow the compromise. The court must scrutinize the factual matrix to determine which category the case falls into.

Result: Petition dismissed. (Para 15)

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash FIR for cyber fraud on basis of compromise between parties. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioners seek quashing on basis of compromise; State opposes citing serious nature of cyber fraud and public interest. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Petition dismissed; FIR and proceedings not quashed on basis of compromise in cyber fraud case. (Para 15 )

4. Can an FIR for cyber fraud be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise?

No, unless the allegations are merely strategic and the offence is essentially a private pecuniary transaction; court must scrutinize facts. (Para 7 , 12 , 13 )

5. What is the scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings?

It is plenary and aimed at preventing abuse of process and securing ends of justice, but must be exercised with circumspection. (Para 10 )

6. What principles govern quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise?

Offences with overwhelming civil flavour, private disputes may be quashed; heinous, serious, or public-impact offences like cyber fraud generally cannot. (Para 9 , 11 )

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The petition in hand has been preferred by the accused – petitioners, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.38 dated 27.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred as the impugned FIR) registered under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 61 of BNS at Police Station PS Cyber Sonipat, Haryana, as also the proceedings subsequent thereto, on the basis of a compromise deed dated 20.09.2025 (appended as Annexure P-2 with the present petition).

2. The gravamen of the impugned FIR is that the complainant namely Divya daughter of Suresh Kumar, Resident of 1008/3, SBI Lane, New Colony, Railway Road, Sonipat alleged that she is employed as an Accountant at Institute of Competitive Studies Pvt. Ltd, having an account with the HDFC Bank bearing Account No.50200053031318. On 24.06.2025, a total of seven unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs.14,83,696/- were carried out from the said account without the knowledge or consent of the complainant. No OTP or transaction message was received at the time of

these transactions. Upon logging into net banking, the complainant discovered the fraudulent withdrawals. The complainant later learned that the money had been transferred to fraudulent accounts opened using fake documents through a fake website. Thereafter, an online complaint was lodged at the Cyber Crime Helpline (1930) and a complaint was registered under No.31306250043329. Based on this complaint, the present FIR has been registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated into the impugned FIR. According to learned counsel, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons and respondent No.2-complainant does not want to continue with the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further urged that a compromise was entered into between the petitioners and the FIR-complainant on 20.09.2025, relevant whereof reads as under:-

“1. That the First Party agrees to withdraw the complaint/FIR/no longer pursue the legal case against the Second Party in respect of the aforementioned cybercrime and has no further grievance or claim in this matter.

2. That both parties affirm that this compromise has been entered into voluntarily, with full understanding of its legal implications.

3. That both parties undertake to cooperate in filing appropriate applications before the Hon’ble Court/Police Authorities for quashing of FIR (if registered), withdrawal of complaint or seeking permission for compromise under applicable law.

4. That this compromise shall be binding on both parties, their legal heirs, representatives and assigns.”

Learned counsel has, thus, iterated that the FIR in question, which was got registered on account of a misunderstanding, has since been resolved between the parties and in order to keep peace as also harmony, the

parties do not wish to continue with proceedings against each other, including the impugned FIR. Learned counsel has further submitted that, pursuant to order dated 25.09.2025 earlier passed by this Court, statements of the rival private parties were recorded before the concerned Magistrate wherein the said parties have reiterated having entered into settlement and a report dated 10.10.2025 has been received from the said Magisterial Court. Learned counsel has further urged that no useful purpose would likely be served by allowing the criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners. Thus, it has been entreated that the petition in hand be granted.

4. Learned State counsel has argued that the impugned FIR was registered for serious allegations of cyber fraud involving fraudulent transactions. According to learned State counsel, the offence of cyber fraud not only affects the complainant but also erodes the public confidence in digital banking transactions. Though the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant has expressed no objection to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 20791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J
Badri Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-54453-2025

A compromise between parties does not warrant the quashing of an FIR for cyber fraud as the offence has a systemic impact on public trust, but an exception exists if the allegations are a strategic inflation of a simple pecuniary dispute.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an FIR for cyber fraud be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise?

5. What is the scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings?

6. What principles govern quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise?

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 20791

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSumeet Goel, JBadri Mandal – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M-54453-2025

A compromise between parties does not warrant the quashing of an FIR for cyber fraud as the offence has a systemic impact on public trust, but an exception exists if the allegations are a strategic inflation of a simple pecuniary dispute.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an FIR for cyber fraud be quashed solely on the basis of a compromise?

5. What is the scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings?

6. What principles govern quashing of criminal proceedings on basis of compromise?

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J
Badri Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-54453-2025