CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -1- 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.05.2025 Gurmel Singh and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit Pardhan, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.176 dated 05.05.2024 (P-1), under Sections 406, 420 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -2- on the basis of compromise dated 02.07.2024 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2. (2) Allegations are that petitioner, along with co-accused, duped the de facto complainant-Bhagwan Singh for sending his son abroad by demanding Rs.12 Lakh. (3) Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. (4) Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. (5) Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2. (6) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. (7) The Coordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion on 06.11.2024, passed the following order:- “Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.176 dated 05.05.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC at Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala (Annexure P-1) along with all the GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -3- subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure P-2). Notice of motion. Upon advance notice, Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State and Mr. Sanjeev K. Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. He has admitted the factum of compromise and supports the prayer made in the petition. The parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court and get their statements recorded with regard to the compromise on 13.11.2024. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing. The report be forwarded to this Court specifying the followings:- 1. The number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case; 2. The name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. The stage of trial/proceedings; 4. If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. 5. Whether any other criminal case is pending against the accused. Report of the Area Magistrate/Trial Court be awaited for 05.12.2024.” (8) Thereafter, on 05.12.2024, Coordinate Bench passed the following order:- GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -4- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide order dated 06.11.2024, the parties were directed to record their statement, but petitioner No. 2 was unable to comply due to an accident. He respectfully seeks one final opportunity to allow petitioner No. 2 to record his statement. Allowed as prayed for. In view of the above, the petitioner No.2 is directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 18.12.2024 or any other date convenient to the Court concerned, for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing. The report be forwarded to this Court specifying the followings:- 1. the number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O. in the case; 2. the name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. the stage of trial/proceedings; 4. If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. 5. Report of the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court be awaited for 15.01.2025.” (9) In terms of aforesaid order(s), statements of both the parties were recorded and report dated 08.01.2025, received from learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. For reference, the relevant extract of report reads as under:- “In view of the statements of the parties, duly identified by their respective counsel, it appeared that the parties have entered into compromise and the said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any kind of pressure, coercion, and at their sweet will. As such, compromise in question is found GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -5- to be a valid and genuine compromise and has been effected between the parties voluntarily without there being any kind of coercion or undue influence.” A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is no objection by either side against each other. (10) Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab”, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -6- offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” (11) In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not involve public funds. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise, would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice. GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CRM-M-54958-2024 (O&M) -7- (12) Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s). Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 12th May, 2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Gagan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GAGANDEEP 2025.05.12 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh