FIR Quashing After Conviction on the Basis of Compromise: When Can the High Court Intervene? A significant judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has examined an important question in criminal law: Can an FIR, criminal proceedings, and even a conviction order be quashed after conviction when the parties subsequently settle their dispute?

The Court answered this question in the affirmative in the facts before it, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A High Court can set aside a conviction and close a case based on a compromise, but it is technically handled as setting aside a judgment or compounding during an appeal or revision rather than quashing an FIR itself. [1, 2]

FIR Quashing after Conviction -Legal Basis and Power

Background of the Case

The criminal proceedings originated from a longstanding dispute between close family members concerning a property.

The accused had been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 471 IPC and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine.

During the subsequent proceedings, the parties entered into a written settlement/compromise before the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of the High Court.

Compromise Between the Parties

The complainant personally supported the settlement and filed an affidavit stating that all disputes had been resolved and that he had no objection to quashing of the FIR.

The State also did not dispute the factum of compromise.

Can Section 528 BNSS Be Used After Conviction?

The High Court examined the scope of its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC.

The Court reiterated that the High Court possesses wide inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. Such powers can be exercised in cases where the dispute is essentially private or personal in nature and the parties have genuinely resolved their entire dispute.

However, the Court also discussed an important limitation arising from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Where a conviction has attained complete finality after all legal remedies have been exhausted, a subsequent compromise ordinarily cannot be used to reopen the matter through extraordinary inherent powers. The Court noted that the pendency of an appeal or other legal proceedings is an important factor in exercising such extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conviction Was Quashed in the Present Case

The High Court also relied upon earlier precedents, including Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, recognising that even after conviction, in appropriate circumstances, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction where the parties have genuinely settled their dispute.

The Court found that the present matter fell within the parameters laid down by the judicial precedents and that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

FIR, Conviction and Sentence All Set Aside

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed:

• The FIR;
• All consequential criminal proceedings;
• The judgment of conviction;
• The order on quantum of sentence; and
• Subsequent proceedings arising from the case.

The Court also directed that if any appeal was pending before the appellate Court, it would be disposed of accordingly.

Also Read-Conviction order Set Aside by Punjab Haryana High Court

Important Legal Principle

The judgment demonstrates that conviction does not invariably make quashing on the basis of compromise impossible.

However, such relief is exceptional and depends upon several factors, including:

• Nature of the dispute;
• Whether the dispute is predominantly private or personal;
• Genuine and voluntary settlement between the parties;
• Stage of the criminal proceedings;
• Whether an appeal or other legal remedy remains pending;
• Whether continuation of prosecution would serve any useful purpose; and
• Whether quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Key Takeaways

• Section 528 BNSS gives the High Court inherent powers corresponding to Section 482 CrPC.
• In appropriate cases, criminal proceedings may be quashed even after conviction.
• A genuine compromise between parties can be a relevant ground where the dispute is essentially private or personal.
• Post-conviction quashing is not an automatic right.
• If the conviction has attained finality after exhaustion of all remedies, compromise-based annulment may ordinarily be impermissible.
• The existence of a pending appeal or other legal proceedings can be significant while invoking extraordinary jurisdiction.
• The ultimate consideration remains prevention of abuse of process and securing the ends of justice.

Also Read-Section 307 IPC FIR Quashing Compromise-HighCourt

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision provides an important illustration of post-conviction FIR quashing under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of compromise.

At the same time, the judgment should not be read as laying down that every conviction can be wiped out merely because the parties subsequently settle. The Court’s power is discretionary and extraordinary, and the nature of the offence, character of the dispute, stage of proceedings, genuineness of settlement and overall interests of justice remain crucial.

The judgment therefore highlights the distinction between an ordinary compounding of an offence and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court to secure the ends of justice.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court, judgment dated 7 August 2026, concerning quashing of an FIR and conviction proceedings on the basis of compromise under Section 528 BNSS.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)