Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13730 (PNJ)

PANKAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

CRM-M/2646/2025 · 2025-09-23

Alok Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

-1- SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment 5. matrimonial disputes, i.e., Section 498 377 IPC has also been invoked. However, the matter has now been settled between the parties and this Court has to tak question can be quashed or not. The power of the High Courts to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS even for theoffences which are not compoundable under BNSS, has State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as under: -2- It is to be noted here that apart from usual Section invoked in matrimonial disputes, i.e., Section 498-A IPC, in the present FIR, Section 377 IPC has also been invoked. However, the matter has now been settled between the parties and this Court has to tak question can be quashed or not. The power of the High Courts to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS even for theoffences which are not compoundable under BNSS, has been discussed in a number of judgments. In State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed 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 It is to be noted here that apart from usual Section invoked in A IPC, in the present FIR, Section 377 IPC has also been invoked. However, the matter has now been settled between the parties and this Court has to take a call as to whether the FIR in question can be quashed or not. The power of the High Courts to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS even for theoffences which are not compoundable under been discussed in a number of judgments. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power Court in quashing a criminal It is to be noted here that apart from usual Section invoked in A IPC, in the present FIR, Section 377 IPC has also been invoked. However, the matter has now been settled e a call as to whether the FIR in question can be quashed or not. The power of the High Courts to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS even for theoffences which are not compoundable under Gian Singh v. , the Supreme Court SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment -3- 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 p 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 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, 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 (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 he 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 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 footing for the purposes of quashing, SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment 6. further discussed in -4- 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, 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 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, shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding." After relying on Gian Singh (supra), this position has been further discussed in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 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 rong 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 ent 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." After relying on Gian Singh (supra), this position has been Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. After relying on Gian Singh (supra), this position has been Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466 under: -5- reported as (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as "29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. 29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court While exerci the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dac not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants whi that capacity are not to be quashed merely on rein the Supreme Court has observed as 29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with n the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on rein the Supreme Court has observed as SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment 7. (2019) 5 SCC 688 of law and observed as under: -6- the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out o commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether t of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases." Subsequently, in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law and observed as under: "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is o as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and the basis of compromise between the victim and 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases." M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. , the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles "15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the racter, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. , the Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment 9. -7- when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;" when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those ecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment -8- SANDEEP SETHI 2025.09.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this Order/Judgment