IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 305 Satish and others State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. Present :- Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR No.267 dated 09.05.2019 149 and 323 (Sections 325, 341 and 427 added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed 2. Briefly summari respondent No.2 09.05.2019, when he had gone for a walk towards the government school, was suddenly hit on his head with a heavy iron object saw 5 men (petitioners herein), who are residents of the same village. Thereafter, the petitioners attacked the complainant several times and as a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-52378 Date of decision: and others VERSUS Haryanaand others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr.Devesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Lakshay Malik, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for respondents/complainants No.2 & 3. **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of FIR No.267 dated 09.05.2019 registered under Sections 148, 149 and 323 (Sections 325, 341 and 427 added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of deed dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the respondent No.2-complainant Krishan is a resident of Village Karhans. On 09.05.2019, when he had gone for a walk towards the government school, was suddenly hit on his head with a heavy iron object saw 5 men (petitioners herein), who are residents of the same village. Thereafter, the petitioners attacked the complainant several times and as a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 52378-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 14.01.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana. respondents/complainants No.2 & 3. Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking registered under Sections 148, 149 and 323 (Sections 325, 341 and 427 added later on) of the Indian Penal 1) at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). the facts of the present case are that the complainant Krishan is a resident of Village Karhans. On 09.05.2019, when he had gone for a walk towards the government school, he was suddenly hit on his head with a heavy iron object. He turned back and saw 5 men (petitioners herein), who are residents of the same village. Thereafter, the petitioners attacked the complainant several times and as a SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -2- result thereof, the latter fell bleeding and subsequently became unconscious. The petitioners then ran away from the spot and thus the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioners. 3 However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition. The parties were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 17.09.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for. 4 Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha, vide Memo No.455 dated 24.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:- “4. It is further humbly submitted that there are total five persons found involved as accused in the dispute / FIR. 5. It is further humbly submitted that there are only one complainant namely Krishan son of Gopi Ram. 6. It is further humbly submitted that all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise and have signed the same. 7. It is further humbly submitted that no person is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition. 8. It is further humbly submitted that no accused persons have been declared proclaimed offender in this case. 9. It is further respectfully submitted that statement of the appearing parties is genuine and not result of any pressure, coercion in any manner. Compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid.” 5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -3- the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed. 7. The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641'. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: “16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -4- complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -5- punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -6- system will weigh in the balance.” 8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. 9. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section 528BNSS:- (i) The respondent No.2-complainant is alleged to have been attacked on the head by the petitioners when he was walking. (ii) The petitioners are aged between 27 and 47years and continued criminal incarceration would hamper their prospects and the discharge of their social obligations; (iii) The petitioners and the private respondents both belong to the same village and a compromise would bring a quietus to the dispute and bring peace and harmony. (iv) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as an offence that would be shocking to the conscience of the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one shocking to the conscience of the Court; 10. In view of the report of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 305 CRM-M-52378-2025 (O&M) -7- 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641', the instant petition is allowed. FIR No.267 dated 09.05.2019 registered under Sections 148, 149 and 323 (Sections 325, 341 and 427 added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Annexure P-1) at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis ofcompromise deed dated 06.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). 11. Petition is allowed in above terms. 14.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document