The first thing to correct is the premise. Once an FIR is registered for a cognizable offence, the prosecution is conducted by the State. The complainant is a witness with statutory rights, not the owner of the proceeding, and a letter saying he no longer wishes to pursue the matter has no operative effect on its own.
There are exactly three doors out on a settlement, and they lead to different places.
| Compounding | Withdrawal from prosecution | Quashing on settlement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provision | Section 359 BNSS | Section 360 BNSS | Section 528 BNSS |
| Who moves it | The person named in the third column of the table | The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge | The accused and the complainant jointly, before the High Court |
| Who decides | Nobody, for the first table. The trial court, for the second | The court, by consenting or refusing | The High Court |
| Effect | Acquittal, under Section 359(8) | Discharge before charge, acquittal after charge, under Section 360 | The proceedings are quashed |
| Available for | Only the offences listed in the two tables | Any offence, but on public interest grounds | Non-compoundable offences of a private character |
Compounding under Section 359
Section 359 carries two tables. The first lists offences that may be compounded by the person named against them without anybody's permission, and it includes voluntarily causing hurt, wrongful restraint and confinement, assault or use of criminal force, theft and criminal breach of contract of service. The second lists offences that may be compounded with the permission of the court before which the prosecution is pending, and it includes voluntarily causing grievous hurt, criminal breach of trust, and cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security.
Four sub-sections then control it. Section 359(5) says that where the accused has been committed for trial, or has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition is allowed without the leave of the court to which he is committed or before which the appeal is to be heard. Section 359(7) bars compounding where the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind. Section 359(8) gives the composition the effect of an acquittal. And Section 359(9) closes the door on creativity: no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. If the offence is not in the tables, there is no compounding, however willing everyone is.
Withdrawal from prosecution under Section 360
This one is often asked for and rarely understood. Section 360 allows the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case, with the consent of the court, at any time before judgment is pronounced, to withdraw from the prosecution of any person, either generally or in respect of one or more offences. If withdrawal is before a charge has been framed the accused is discharged, and if after, he is acquitted.
Two limits matter. It is not the complainant's application. It is a decision of the prosecuting agency, taken in the public interest, and the court applies its own mind rather than rubber stamping it. And the Sanhita has added a proviso that did not exist in the old Section 321 of the CrPC: no court shall allow such withdrawal without giving an opportunity of being heard to the victim in the case. A settlement arranged behind the victim's back is now structurally harder to push through.
Quashing under Section 528 where the offence is not compoundable
This is the route most people actually need, because the offences that generate settlements in Bengaluru, cheating in a business deal, criminal breach of trust by a partner, cruelty allegations arising out of a marriage that has since been dissolved, are frequently outside the Section 359 tables. Section 528 preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
The line the Supreme Court has drawn is between offences that are private in character and offences with a serious societal element. Where the dispute is essentially commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or matrimonial, the parties have genuinely settled, and the chance of a conviction is remote so that continuing the trial would only cause oppression and prejudice, the High Court may quash even a non-compoundable case. Where the offence is heinous, or has an impact on society beyond the two parties, or is under a special statute investigated by a central agency, settlement is not a ground. The power is not an alternative route to compounding and courts say so when it is presented as one.
- A written settlement or memorandum of understanding, signed, dated and ideally registered or notarised, setting out exactly what was paid or done
- Proof of performance, meaning the bank transfer, the receipt or the discharge, because a promise to pay later is a weak foundation
- An affidavit from the complainant stating that the settlement is voluntary, free of coercion, and that he has no objection to the proceedings being quashed
- Personal appearance of both parties before the High Court, or appearance through video conferencing where the court permits it, since identity is verified
- The status of the case, meaning whether a chargesheet is filed, whether cognizance is taken, and whether a charge has been framed
- Any earlier settlement that failed, disclosed rather than concealed
What happens if the complainant simply stops cooperating
Nothing automatic. The prosecution can proceed on the rest of the evidence, and a complainant who resiles in the witness box is declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, with the earlier statement used to contradict him under the proviso to Section 181(1). In a case resting entirely on that one witness the trial may well end in acquittal, but that is an outcome after a full trial, not a shortcut, and it can take years. A complainant who files a false affidavit to help the accused also exposes himself, because giving false evidence is a distinct offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The practitioner's caution
Where money changes hands as part of a settlement, sequence everything. Pay against a signed receipt, get the affidavit contemporaneously, and file the quashing petition promptly rather than months later, because complainants change their minds and a stale settlement is much harder to prove. In cheque bounce and loan recovery matters in particular, a settlement recorded properly is what closes the file, and a settlement recorded loosely is what produces a second round of litigation. Our guide on which offences can be compounded under the BNS lets you check the tables before you negotiate, and our note on a criminal case continuing after a loan has been settled deals with the situation where the other side takes the money and keeps the case alive. Where quashing is the route, the papers a petition needs are set out in our guide on how to quash an FIR.