Order

The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 77/2026 dated 25.03.2026 registered at PS- Dabok, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are false and based on a concocted story. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is a major and has categorically denied the allegations. It is further submitted that with the intervention of mediators, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a written compromise dated 27.03.2026, and in view thereof, no dispute now survives and the complainant as well as the prosecutrix do not wish to continue with the proceedings.

Learned counsel representing the complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant does not wish to pursue the case further. It is further submitted that the compromise has been executed voluntarily, without any coercion, and is duly supported by affidavit of the prosecutrix.

As per the compromise placed on record and the affidavit, the prosecutrix has stated that no such incident as alleged in the FIR took place and that the FIR came to be lodged due to misunderstanding and in fact their were financial transactions between the parties and she has no objection to the quashing of the proceedings.

From the compromise deed placed on record, it appears that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and no grievance now survives between them, and the same has been entered into voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the compromise entered into between the parties, which has been placed on record, as the complainant and is represented through counsel.

The Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. (Criminal appeal no. 708/2021), has held that even in offences of serious nature, if the parties have settled the dispute and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the FIR can be quashed. The relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:

“3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging,inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that He is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.”

(emphasis supplied)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhukar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 INSC 819, has observed that although offences under Section 64 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 376 IPC) are undoubtedly grave in na