Last Updated on August 30, 2026 by Satish Mishra
Cross FIR / Cross Case Quashing on the Basis of Compromise: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains. High Courts in India can quash cross-First Information Reports (FIRs) based on a mutual compromise between parties using inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), to secure the ends of justice. [1, 2]
A recent judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court provides a useful illustration of how a cross criminal case can be quashed on the basis of a genuine compromise between the parties by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Cross FIR Quashing Compromise.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh routinely quashes cross-First Information Reports (FIRs) or cross-Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) based on a genuine, voluntary compromise between parties for non-heinous or private disputes.
- Two complaints: Opposing parties register criminal cases against each other for the same fight or incident.
- Pressure tactics: Sometimes, one party files a counter-FIR just to force a settlement
Can Cross FIR Quashing Compromise Quashed?
- Settlement: If both sides resolve their dispute peacefully, they can approach the High Court together.
- Both cases: Courts often quash both the main FIR and the cross-case so that peace is restored.
- Nature of offence: Quashing works best for personal or private disputes with minor injuries.
- Heinous crimes: If the charges involve very grave offences, heavy violence, or severe public harm, courts may refuse to quash the FIR despite a settlement.
The Court relied upon the principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and approved by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.
Key Legal Principles in Cross FIR Quashing Compromise
- Limitations: Quashing based on a compromise is generally not permitted for grave or heinous offenses (such as Section 307 IPC, the Arms Act, or cases involving serious societal impact/moral turpitude). Partial compromises where disputes remain active or grave charges persist are typically rejected
Background of the Case
The petition was filed seeking quashing of a cross case arising out of an FIR registered for offences including Sections 323, 324, 34 and 506 IPC.
The petitioners approached the High Court after the parties entered into a compromise dated 8 May 2026, seeking termination of the cross criminal proceedings and all consequential proceedings arising from them.
- Compromise Deed: Drafting a clear written compromise or memorandum of understanding signed by both parties.
- Joint Petition: Filing a petition before the High Court for quashing the FIR/cross-case and all consequential proceedings.
Verification of the Compromise
Before exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate and record their statements.
The Judicial Magistrate thereafter submitted a report confirming that the compromise had been entered into voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence.
The report also recorded that:
- There was no other accused in the case apart from the petitioners.
- Statements of the relevant parties and the Investigating Officer had been recorded.
- No other criminal case was pending against the petitioners.
- None of the petitioners had been declared a proclaimed person/offender.
State and Complainant Did Not Oppose the Compromise
Another important factor was that the State as well as the private respondents did not dispute the factum of compromise.
After considering the verified compromise and the circumstances of the case, the High Court concluded that continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
Also Read-Compromise Quashing High Court Chandigarh Matrimonial Disputes
Exercise of Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS
The petition was filed under Section 528 BNSS, which corresponds to the inherent jurisdiction previously exercised under Section 482 CrPC.
The High Court applied the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers where continuation of criminal proceedings, after a genuine settlement between the parties, would serve no meaningful purpose.
Relying upon Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the cross case along with all subsequent proceedings arising from it.
What Does This Mean for Cross FIRs?
The judgment demonstrates that the existence of a cross FIR or cross case does not by itself prevent quashing where the dispute has been genuinely settled and the circumstances justify exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
However, quashing on the basis of compromise is not automatic. The Court ordinarily examines the genuineness and voluntariness of the settlement and other relevant circumstances before deciding whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose.
Importance of Magistrate Verification
The case also highlights the practical importance of obtaining a proper compromise-verification report.
The High Court had specifically directed the parties to appear before the Magistrate. The resulting report provided the Court with confirmation regarding:
voluntariness + absence of coercion + identity of parties + criminal antecedents + status of accused.
Such verification can therefore play an important role when a petition for quashing is based upon settlement.
Key Takeaways
- A cross criminal case may, in appropriate circumstances, be quashed on the basis of compromise.
- Section 528 BNSS provides the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for such relief.
- The compromise should be genuine, voluntary and free from coercion.
- Verification by the competent Magistrate can be an important procedural safeguard.
- The Court may consider whether continuation of proceedings would serve any useful purpose.
- The principles governing compromise-based quashing under Kulwinder Singh and Gian Singh remain important considerations.
Also Read-Compromise Quashing in 323 IPC Case
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision illustrates the practical use of Section 528 BNSS for quashing a cross case after an amicable settlement.
The judgment also reinforces that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where the parties have genuinely resolved their dispute and the circumstances justify bringing the litigation to an end.
Importantly, the decision is based on the particular facts before the Court and should not be understood as laying down that every cross FIR can automatically be quashed merely because the parties have entered into a compromise.
Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court, order dated 7 August 2026, concerning quashing of a cross case on the basis of compromise under Section 528 BNSS.
By Satish Mishra, Advocate, (99888-17966)
