CRM-M No.4681 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 262 Abhimanyu and others State of Haryana and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NAMIT KUMAR 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 No.16 dated 24.02.2021 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC were Manesar, District Gurugram proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of (Annexure P-2) executed between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 4681 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision: Abhimanyu and others Versus Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Hitesh Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 24.02.2021 registered under Sections (Sections 376 and 511 IPC were deleted later on) Manesar, District Gurugram (Annexure P- proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of ) executed between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.4681 of 2025 Date of Decision:01.04.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR , Advocate Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. for The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 & 34 later on) at Women Police Station -1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2025 Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. s The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under for quashing of FIR A, 506 & 34 at Women Police Station 1) and all other subsequent 15.01.2025 Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4681 4. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1 District and Sessions Judge, which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. 5. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Division Bench of this Court in case Haryana and another, compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non 6. An identical question came to be decided by Hon' Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 543 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 the power given to a c 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 justic 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 eac 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. cann fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in 4681 of 2025 -2- In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon' Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 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 and circumstances of eac 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. cann fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in In compliance thereof, report dated 27.02.2025 from learned has been received through learned , with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 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 riminal 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 e 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 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 from learned has been received through learned , with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no Kulwinder Singh vs. and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of bserved that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in ble Supreme 2012(4) RCR . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 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 riminal 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 e 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 h 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 ot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4681 nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation t offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre differ 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 th wrong is basically private or personnel 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 poss 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 compromi 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 l 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 answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be wel its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 7. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 482. 8. Having regard to the contentions of l and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are 4681 of 2025 -3- nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation t offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 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 th wrong is basically private or personnel 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 poss 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 compromi 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 l 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 answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be wel its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 482. Having regard to the contentions of l and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the eover, learned counsel for the parties are nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on ent 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 personnel 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 put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the eover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any o the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on ent 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 e wrong is basically private or personnel 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 ibility 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 se 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 aw 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 answer to the above l within The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case 2014(2) RCR parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise has been at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the that, in view of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4681 the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 498-A, 506 & 34 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC were Women Police Station Manesar, District Gurugr proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner April 01, 2025 Pankaj* 4681 of 2025 -4- the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.16 dated 24.02.2021 registered under Sections 323, 406, A, 506 & 34 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC were Women Police Station Manesar, District Gurugr proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, 16 dated 24.02.2021 registered under Sections 323, 406, A, 506 & 34 IPC (Sections 376 and 511 IPC were deleted later on) at Women Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, 16 dated 24.02.2021 registered under Sections 323, 406, later on) at and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh