BUDHRAM KESHAVRAM BENIVALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 46-ANY OTHER MODE @ FH
- Bench
- P M RAVAL
Holding
The court held that, notwithstanding the non‑compoundable nature of the offences, they may be compounded and the FIR quashed where the parties have compromised and there is no public interest.
Summary
The petitioners filed a Special Criminal Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash FIR No.11210064260585 registered for multiple offences, including non‑compoundable ones under the BNS and the Information Technology Act. Both the de facto complainant and the victim appeared in court and affirmed that they had reached a compromise and wished to compound the offences. The court noted the precedent set in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which allows compounding of non‑compoundable offences in appropriate cases where there is no larger public interest. Finding that the dispute concerned missing goods in transport and did not affect society at large, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 to permit compounding. Consequently, the application was allowed, the FIR and any related proceedings were quashed, and the accused were ordered to be released unless implicated in other offences.
Issues considered
- Can non‑compoundable offences listed in the FIR be compounded under Section 528 of the BNSS when the parties have reached a compromise?
- Does the court have the inherent power to quash an FIR for such offences in the absence of public interest?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 528
- Information Technology Acts. 66(C), s. 66(D), s. 66(E)
Subjects
Judgment
R/SCR.A/7629/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (FOR CONSENT QUASHING) NO.
7629 of 2026
==========================================================
BUDHRAM KESHAVRAM BENIVAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 04/06/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Leave to amend. Necessary amendment to be carried out
forthwith.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Tejas D. Shukla appears on behalf of
the original complainant and victim and that he may be permitted
to file his vakalatnama. Registry to accept the same.
3. This application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is filed seeking to quash the FIR
being C.R. No.11210064260585 of 2026, registered with
Godadara Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable
under Sections 309(3), 309(4), 309(6), 311, 140(2), 127(2), 115(2),
117(2), 351(3), 296(B), 54 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 66(C),
66(D) and 66(E) of the IT Act.
4. Heard, the learned advocate for the applicant, learned
advocate for the second respondent, who is the de facto
Page 1 of 3
R/SCR.A/7629/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2026
complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent – State.
5. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
advocate for the applicant as well as the learned advocate for the
second respondent - de facto complainant would submit that
both the parties have entered into compromise and they have
settled the dispute between them amicably and they have
decided to compound the offence. The learned advocate for the
applicant has also filed the affidavit of the second respondent -
de facto complainant to this effect.
5.1. Today, the victim and the original Complainant are present
in the Court and they have tendered their affidavits, which are
ordered to be taken on record.
6. The de facto complainant is physically present before the
Court today. When questioned, he has unequivocally stated that
he has entered into compromise with the accused and they have
amicably settled the dispute and that, he has no objection to
quash the FIR that is registered against the applicant.
7. Although, the offences for which the FIR was registered,
are non-compoundable offences, as per the dictum laid down by
the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC
303, in appropriate cases, where the offences have no impact on
the society, the Court in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 528 of BNSS, can permit the parties to compound the
Page 2 of 3
R/SCR.A/7629/2026 ORDER DATED: 04/06/2026
offences even which are non-compoundable. Although, some
cases are exempted which are catelogued in the said judgment of
the Apex Court, the present case is not falling within the said
exempted cases.
7.1. Prima facie, it transpires that this is a dispute between two
parties with regard to missing goods in transport and has no
larger bearing on public interest.
8. Therefore, permission is accorded to the applicant and the
de facto complainant to compound the offence as prayed for and
the compromise is recorded.
9. Resultantly, the application is allowed. The, FIR, referred to
herein above, and the proceedings, if any, pursuant thereto, are
hereby quashed against present the applicants.
10. The applicants are ordered to be released if they are not
required in connection with any other criminal offence.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
KUMAR ALOK
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ALOK KUMAR(HC01091), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/06/2026 15:08:02
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.