1 124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1512-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Amit Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Gaurav, Advocate, for Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for quashing of FIR No. 271 dated 10.04.2024 (P-1), under Sections 405, 406 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station, Gurgaon Sadar, District Gurugram, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 30.10.2024 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. 2. Allegations are that petitioner committed criminal breach of trust by not returning an amount of Rs.6,89,201/- to the complainant- company and caused wrongful loss to complainant company knowingly and intentionally. 3. Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, i.e. petitioner 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 Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police officer 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. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 7. While issuing notice of motion on 22.01.2025, this Court has passed the following order:- “Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2. (2) Notice of motion. (3) On asking of the Court, Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State. (4) Mr. Ajay Sharma, who is present in the Court, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. He acknowledged the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2. (5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day. (6) Petitioner shall file his affidavit that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise. (7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 18.02.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them. (8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- (i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner? (ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid? (iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)? (iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof? (v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? (vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not? (9) List before this Court on 05.03.2025 for further consideration. (10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection? (11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance.” 8. In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 18.02.2025 has been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:- “1). As per the statement of authorized representative of the complainant company and accused namely Amit Kumar, their statements are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner; 2). As per the statement of authorized representative of the complainant company and accused namely Amit Kumar, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid; 3). As per the statement of authorized representative of the complainant company, accused namely Amit Kumar and Investigating Officer and in view of the compromise deed/deed of settlement dated 30.10.2024 (copy of which is Ex.C1), all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise; 4). As per the statement of Investigating Officer, no other case is pending against either of the parties; 5). As per the statement of Investigating Officer, the persons involved in the present case/dispute have not been declared as proclaimed person; 6). As per the statement of the Investigating Officer, accused Amit Kumar is not a previous convict.” 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. 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:- Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 “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 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.” Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 10. 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. 11. Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 30.04.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document