CRM-M No.57912 of 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 285 CRM-M No.57912 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision :26.08.2025 Ankur Maheshwari and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. J.S.Mohri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.681 dated 01.07.2019, under Sections 25 and 54 of Arms Act 1959 and Sections 285, 323, 336 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Jagadhari City, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been perused carefully. 3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated 22.11.2024, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise. MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.27 20:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.57912 of 2024 (O&M) 2 4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned Civil Judge (SD)-cum-ACJM, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, dated 13.12.2024 has been received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been amicably settled between them, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. 5. As far as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under Sections 285, 336 of IPC and Section 54 of Arms Act, for which the petitioners have been prosecuted, are non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are analysed in the backdrop of above mentioned and development, it transpires:- i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature; ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioners; iii) that it does not involve henious and serious offence of mental depravity; v) that the action of petitioners does not have a serious impact on the society; and vi) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties. vii) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court; viii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means, xi) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings; x) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed; MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.27 20:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.57912 of 2024 (O&M) 3 xi) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy; xii) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness; xiii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender; xiv) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice. 6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:- “57. 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 MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.27 20:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M No.57912 of 2024 (O&M) 4 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. xxx xxx xxx. ” 8. In view of the afore-referred principles of law, and after perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondents No.2 to 6, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed. 9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR No.681 dated 01.07.2019, under Sections 25 and 54 of Arms Act 1959 and Sections 285, 323, 336 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Jagadhari City, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 26.08.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2025.08.27 20:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document