CRM-M-2802-2025 293 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Vineet Kumar and Others State of Haryana and Another CORAM : HON’BLE Present: Mr. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sujata SUDEEPTI SHARMA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 23.08.2021 registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 2. Pursuant to the order dated the Judicial Magistrate 1 has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : Vineet Kumar and Others VERSUS State of Haryana and Another HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Ms. Sujata, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for quashing of FIR No. registered under Sections 109, 120-B, 180, 323, 354, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2025 the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 has -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-2802-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA , Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, , Advocate for respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya for quashing of FIR No.0468 dated B, 180, 323, 354, 354-A, 406, 420, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of ). 18.01.2025, a report dated 06.02.2025 has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, the complainant/respondent No.2 has Bharatiya dated A, 406, 420, Civil Lines, District Karnal and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of 06.02.2025 of has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, the complainant/respondent No.2 has TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2802-2025 no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] 2025 (O&M) no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under : “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 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 se 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts an 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences -2- no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts an 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 pe, 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise offender in relation to the offences no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 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 cure 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 pe, 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise offender in relation to the offences TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2802-2025 2025 (O&M) under special statutes like 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 off cases having overwhelmingly and pre flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transa 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is p -3- under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash iminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme d 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 iminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing ences. But the criminal dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, ctions 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, High Court may quash iminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme d 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 iminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is ut to an end and if the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-2802-2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court i [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash th abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue with the cr 6. Resultantly, 109, 120-B, 180, 323, 354, 354 at Police Station arising out of the said FIR (Annexure P-2), 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. February 10, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash th abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to the criminal proceedings. Resultantly, FIR No.0468 dated 23.08.2021 B, 180, 323, 354, 354-A, 406, 420, 498 at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal including all arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated , is quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. February 10, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to 23.08.2021 registered under Sections A, 406, 420, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including all subsequent proceeding on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2025 The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non- compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court e proceedings to prevent In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to registered under Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ubsequent proceedings 02.01.2025 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document