CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 268 SONU @ SATISH AND ORS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1. Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 31.08.2024, (Section 109 BNS added later on), District Faridabad (Annexure P therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 2. to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. -19524-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SONU @ SATISH AND ORS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Ms. Mansi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Divyansh Shukla, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 31.08.2024, registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS (Section 109 BNS added later on), registered at Police Station District Faridabad (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated This Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19524-2026 Date of Decision: 01.05.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Advocate This is a petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik for quashing of FIR No.521, dated 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS registered at Police Station Mujesar, and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-2). 10.04.2026 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the .2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondents Bharatiya Nagarik dated 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS Mujesar, and subsequent proceedings arising 2). had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M- 3. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad On the basis of the statements so recorded, Faridabad compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 4. and 3 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the 5. continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. 6. “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”2014(2) RC follows:- -19524-2026 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, p Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad On the basis of the statements so recorded, Faridabad has submitted report dated 28.04.2026 compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the matter of “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”2014(2) RC “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power und of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings : (I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, whe settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. foresaid order, parties have appeared before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Judicial Magistrate First Class, 28.04.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the matter of “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings : (I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. arties have appeared before the recorded. Judicial Magistrate First Class, he effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the matter of R (Criminal) 482 as “31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement er section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction (I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those re the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-19524-2026 (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure : (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servan capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 I. category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mentio I.P.C. in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure : (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly dominantly civil character, particularly those arising of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as he possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under Section 307 I.P.C. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 I.P.C. in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether (II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on (III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the ts while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly dominantly civil character, particularly those arising of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as he possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be P.C. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against However, the High Court would not rest n of Section 307 I.P.C. in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-19524-2026 incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidenc proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to ex section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge i framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of eapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the s of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence lete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge i framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or e, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of eapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the . In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them ercise its power under section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M- 7. under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 (Sec of compromise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan; 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 -19524-2026 the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the m stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Sectio conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” While considering the issue regarding quashing of the FIR under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 (Section 307 of erstwhile IPC) on the basis of compromise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan; 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in urt would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 I.P.C. and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty While considering the issue regarding quashing of the FIR tion 307 of erstwhile IPC) on the basis of compromise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the matter of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan; 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 as follows:- “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having erwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in urt would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already atter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the n 307 I.P.C. and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty While considering the issue regarding quashing of the FIR tion 307 of erstwhile IPC) on the basis “State of “13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code to compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having erwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-19524-2026 ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of section 307 the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, wh inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/char and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on uch power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of ictim and the offender; iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal or the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute lves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on uch power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal or the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute lves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go ether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after ge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M- 8. would advert to the facts of the present case and the pleadings of the pa 9. to some misunderstanding, which now stands resolved and the matter has been compromised with the intervention of both the sides had not only buried compromise between the parties, there are minimal chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose before the Court. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placemen parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance. 10. continuation of the proceedings in the present case wou -19524-2026 conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should b harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature a have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” Keeping in view the above stated principles of law, now I would advert to the facts of the present case and the pleadings of the pa In the present case, a dispute arose between both the parties due to some misunderstanding, which now stands resolved and the matter has been compromised with the intervention of both the sides had not only buried their hatchet and even, in view of the compromise between the parties, there are minimal chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose before the Court. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placemen parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings in the present case wou conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the sed was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise Keeping in view the above stated principles of law, now I would advert to the facts of the present case and the pleadings of the parties. dispute arose between both the parties due to some misunderstanding, which now stands resolved and the matter has been compromised with the intervention of respectables. Apart from that, their hatchet and even, in view of the compromise between the parties, there are minimal chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose before the Court. In the light of the judicial precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings in the present case would be an abuse of the conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this e read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- nd do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the sed was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise Keeping in view the above stated principles of law, now I rties. dispute arose between both the parties due to some misunderstanding, which now stands resolved and the matter has . Apart from that, their hatchet and even, in view of the compromise between the parties, there are minimal chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose before the Court. In the light of the judicial t of parties, and other factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ld be an abuse of the GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M- process of Court. As a consequence, the present petition is accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of registered under Sections BNS added later on (Annexure P of compromise dated quashed. 11. of, accordingly. 01.05.202 Gurpreet -19524-2026 process of Court. As a consequence, the present petition is accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of registered under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS (Section 109 BNS added later on), registered at Police Station (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) .2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : process of Court. As a consequence, the present petition is accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.521, dated 31.08.2024, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS (Section 109 registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis (Annexure P-2), are hereby ordered to be Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No process of Court. As a consequence, the present petition is accepted and the 31.08.2024, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5) BNS (Section 109 Mujesar, District Faridabad and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis are hereby ordered to be Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed GURPREET 2026.05.01 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.