CRM-M No.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 255 Shivraj @ Yuvraj and others State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Ashish Kumar for the petitioner Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. for respondent No.2. *** NAMIT KUMAR 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 Sections 115, 3(5) and 74 of BNS Kaithal on the basis of between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 has solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 therefore, the present the dispute, which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the con genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 13757 of 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision: Shivraj @ Yuvraj and others Versus Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Ashish Kumar Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Pankaj Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 115, 3(5) and 74 of BNS registered at Police Station on the basis of compromise dated 04.03.2025 parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled , which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent 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. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.13757 of 2025 Date of Decision:02.07.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section FIR No.65 dated 11.02.2025 under registered at Police Station Pundri, District 04.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) executed Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 on 18.02.2025 and may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled , which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was cerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. s The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section under , District executed Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner and may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled , which fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was cerned parties, with regard to the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.13 4. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1 and Sessions Judge, been stated that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. 5. The Hon'ble Full Bench o State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Division Bench of this Court in case Haryana and another, compounding 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'ble 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 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 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 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 Hig 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 s 13757 of 2025 -2- In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kaithal has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Kaithal, with statements of the parties, in which, it has 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 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'ble 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 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 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 In compliance thereof, report dated 02.04.2025 from learned has been received through learned District , with statements of the parties, in which, it has that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence f 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 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 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 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 h 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 ettled the dispute. Such offences are not private in from learned has been received through learned District , with statements of the parties, in which, it has that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence Kulwinder Singh vs. and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of observed that of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in Supreme 2012(4) RCR . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be 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 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 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 h 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 ettled the dispute. Such offences are not private in PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.13 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 f involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commerci 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 e 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 acc 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 unfa 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 secu 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.” 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 learned counsel for the and the fact that both the parties t and on that basis, the present petition under Section been filed for quashing the present with the intervention of the respectables and family member 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 13757 of 2025 -3- 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 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 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, (Criminal) 482. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family member 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 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 any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the al, 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 ntire 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 used 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 ir 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 re 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 o the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS,2023 has . 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 matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem 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 any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the al, 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 ntire 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 used 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 ir 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 re 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 The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case 2014(2) RCR parties o the litigation have entered into compromise has . The compromise has been arrived at s 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 ad idem PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.13 that, in view of 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.65 dated 11.02.2025 under Sections 115, 3(5) and 74 of BNS registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner July 02, 2025 Pankaj* 13757 of 2025 -4- ew of 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.65 dated 11.02.2025 under Sections 115, 3(5) and 74 of BNS registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal the basis of compromise, qua the petitioners only. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ew of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.65 dated 11.02.2025 under Sections 115, 3(5) and 74 of BNS registered at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal is hereby quashed, on only. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No ew of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.65 dated 11.02.2025 under Sections 115, 3(5) and 74 of hereby quashed, on PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.07.03 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh