Refusal to Quash FIR in Serious Offenses Despite Settlement: Bombay High Court’s Clarification under BNS 2023

1. Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Vijay Rambabu Sonkar & Ors v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr (delivered on January 2, 2025) addresses an important question about the scope of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.PC”), especially when parties seek to quash First Information Reports (“FIRs”) predicated on a subsequent settlement or compromise. Two Writ Petitions—WP No. 5231 of 2024 and WP No. 5233 of 2024—were filed, each relating to FIRs lodged in connection with a communal dispute that resulted in physical injuries and grave allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS 2023”).

The parties involved included individuals from two different communities (Hindu and Muslim), each side alleging serious insults, abuse, and physical assaults upon family members of the other side. Both sets of Petitioners sought to end the criminal proceedings on the basis of a mutual desire to “live peacefully,” contending that continuing the proceedings would no longer serve justice. Although they invoked the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC, the Court refused to quash the FIRs, emphasizing that these offenses were serious in nature and had broader implications for public order.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In the main operative portion of the judgment, the High Court:

Noted that both sets of Petitioners had lodged complaints against each other, resulting in two separate FIRs (FIR No. 1349 of 2024 and FIR No. 1348 of 2024) alleging offenses under Sections 115(2), 352, 79, and 3(5) of BNS 2023.
Highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, including abusive and filthy language directed at women, physical assault, injuries, and a communal undertone, as well as the alleged desecration of a deity’s statue.
Considered the Supreme Court’s guidance in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. and other landmark precedents regarding the quashing of proceedings in light of settlements.
Determined that, because these particular offenses involved communal disquiet, physical force, and a degree of seriousness transcending a mere private or civil dispute, quashing the FIRs would not serve the ends of justice.
Concluded that the parties’ compromise did not override the public interest in allowing the criminal justice process to reach completion. Therefore, both Petitions were dismissed and the Rule discharged.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s rationale as set out in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466, which establishes guiding principles for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC based on a settlement:

Principle of balancing: Quashing may be appropriate only if the offenses are not of a heinous or serious nature and are amenable to a purely private settlement.
Public dimension: If the offense has ramifications for society at large (for example, communal tensions or serious bodily harm), it is less likely that quashing will be appropriate.
Stage of settlement: The timing of the compromise is crucial; settlements reached before substantial investigation or before final arguments may be viewed more liberally.
Nature of the offense: Offenses like murder, rape, dacoity, or any crime of mental depravity are generally treated as offenses against society and thus less likely to be quashed upon settlement.

The Court found these principles instructive but concluded that the communal dimension and actual bodily injuries inflicted in the present case put the matter outside the realm of simple private disputes.

B. Legal Reasoning

Central to the Court’s decision was the recognition that certain criminal infractions, especially those involving violence and communal elements, cannot be treated as purely personal or private in nature. The High Court underscored:

The seriousness of using abusive and insulting language—particularly aimed at women—and the ensuing battery or physical harm inflicted on both sides.
The societal ramifications of a communal dispute, where antagonism between communities could generate public disorder if not addressed via the appropriate criminal justice process.
The distinction between crimes arising out of commercial or matrimonial disputes, which can often be resolved amicably, and cases involving public order concerns or violence, which cannot simply be quashed in the name of compromise.

Consequently, the Court found that the impetus to halt prosecution solely on grounds of a subsequent settlement did not outweigh the interest of justice, given the severity and communal undertones of the alleged conduct.

C. Impact

This judgment clarifies and reinforces existing jurisprudence regarding the use of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. Although the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Narinder Singh already covered a broad spectrum of scenarios, the Bombay High Court’s ruling provides additional clarity, particularly in the context of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS 2023). By refusing to quash the FIRs, the Court signals:

An increased vigilance regarding communal or hate-based offenses, affirming that such disputes cannot be casually reduced to private settlements.
An emphasis on safeguarding public interest when the potential exists for significant social harm or disruption of communal harmony.
That statutory amendments (like the introduction of new penal provisions under BNS 2023) do not diminish the Court’s responsibility to ensure justice by scrutinizing the nature of the alleged offense.

Going forward, parties involved in serious offenses—especially those with communal or physical-violence components—will face tougher scrutiny if they rely on private settlement to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several important legal terms and concepts appear in the judgment:

Section 482 of the Cr.PC: This confers upon High Courts the inherent power to act in the interest of justice, giving them a special capacity to quash criminal proceedings in rare and compelling circumstances. However, courts must exercise this power cautiously and only where a prosecution would serve no legitimate purpose.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS 2023”): A recently enacted code (replacing legacy criminal law provisions) that retains much of the framework of the prior penal laws but also introduces new or modified sections, reinforcing the seriousness of communal violence and hate-based crimes.
Quashing of FIR: A legal process through which the High Court terminates criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage, typically done when the allegations are either unfounded at their core or when continuing the proceedings would constitute a misuse of legal processes. Courts routinely analyze whether quashing would “secure the ends of justice” or “prevent the abuse of process” before granting such relief.

5. Conclusion

In Vijay Rambabu Sonkar & Ors v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that criminal complaints involving communal tensions, abusive language targeting women, and physical assaults do not qualify as trivial or purely personal disputes. Even if parties express a wish to settle and move on, the Court must weigh broader societal interests and the seriousness of the alleged offenses. Accordingly, the Court concluded that allowing the FIRs to be quashed would undermine the objectives of criminal law—namely, to protect public peace and deter would-be offenders from committing such acts with impunity.

Looking ahead, practitioners and litigants must understand that the presence of compromise among adversaries does not automatically absolve serious charges, especially those with communal or physical violence dimensions. This decision serves as a cautionary precedent, signaling that the High Court will not be inclined to quash FIRs in circumstances that raise concerns of public disorder and violate the very core of social harmony.