[BNSS] Section 359 Does Not Curtail High Court's Inherent Powers U/S 528 To Quash FIRs: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that the provisions of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC, do not restrict the inherent powers of the High Court to quash an FIR under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC).

The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court remains intact, and can be invoked to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law, particularly where continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by two individuals seeking the quashing of a charge-sheet arising from an FIR registered under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, where the parties had amicably settled their matrimonial dispute.

A Single Bench comprising Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, while deciding the matter, noted that “…the provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 320 of the Code do not restrict but limit and circumvent the powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 482 of the Code regarding quashment of FIR's and criminal proceedings for the sake of the society at large which is real beneficiary of the criminal justice delivery system.”

The matter arose from an FIR registered alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 109 IPC, culminating in a charge-sheet before the court of the Special Mobile Magistrate. The petitioner and the respondent had been married, but matrimonial disputes arose, ultimately leading to a mutual settlement between the parties. A petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage was also pending before the competent civil court.

During the proceedings, both parties appeared before the High Court and affirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and continuation of the criminal case would serve no purpose.

The State, however, opposed unrestricted quashing based purely on compromise, contending that automatic quashment may lead to lawlessness if accused and complainants freely compound criminal cases at their discretion.

The J&K High Court, upon examining the record, held that although such complaints cannot be routinely quashed solely because a settlement has been reached, the facts of the present case warranted the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent continued litigation.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in Gopal Kumar B. Nar v. CBI, where it was held that quashing a non-compoundable offence under Section 482 CrPC after settlement does not amount to a circumvention of Section 320, provided the power is exercised cautiously.

The Court further reproduced and relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur, summarising the scope of inherent powers and the conditions under which quashing may be permitted.

Further, the High Court, while referring to Kapil Gupta v. State NCT of Delhi, observed that where continuation of the trial would serve no purpose and the complainant is not supporting the prosecution's case, quashing may be justified to prevent harassment and unnecessary burden on the judicial system.

In addition, reliance was also placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narender Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasising that where the dispute is personal in nature and the possibility of conviction is remote, quashing criminal proceedings secures the ends of justice.

The Court, while observing that matrimonial and civil disputes often spill into criminal litigation, and quashing such cases after genuine settlement promotes harmony and prevents futile trials, remarked that “allowing the complainant/victim and the accused in a criminal proceeding at any stage of investigation, trial or appeal to seek quashment of the proceedings or the compounding of the offences even in cases where commission of non-compoundable offences of personal nature not involving public/social aspect is alleged, on the basis of amicable settlement, is not likely to prove detrimental to the scope and object of the provisions of Section 359 of the BNSS.”

Consequently, the Court held that an exceptional case had been made out for the exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the charge-sheet arising out of the FIR was quashed, and the petition was allowed and disposed of.

Case Title: Sidharth Mahajan & Anr. v. UT of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment