262. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ankit @ Ankit Yadav State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. Section 482 No.12, dated 506 of IPC, at all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated parties. 2. may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ankit @ Ankit Yadav Versus Haryana and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. L.K. Gollen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Raghav, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ------ NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR , dated 07.02.2022, registered under Section , at Women Police Station, District Rewari (Annexure P all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19028-2025 Date of decision: 11.08.2025 .... Petitioner .... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Pradeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR , registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A and , District Rewari (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of .03.2025 (Annexure P-2) executed between the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR A and and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 2) executed between the parties submits that the present FIR HIMANSHU 2025.08.12 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19028 3. directed to record the statements of all the concerned the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 4. Chief Judicial Magistrate, 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. Versus State of Punjab and ano Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proc Sessions Court and in cases involving non 6. Court in case RCR (Criminal) 543 ruled as under: 19028-2025 During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated 07 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Rewari, 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 Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Versus State of Haryana and another, 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 cases involving non-compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled 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 the power given to a criminal - 2 - 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. pliance thereof, report dated 07.05.2025 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 undue influence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh ther, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after eedings of the appeal against conviction pending in compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was 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 e of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was parties, with regard to .05.2025 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 Kulwinder Singh and Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after eedings of the appeal against conviction pending in An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was 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 e of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal HIMANSHU 2025.08.12 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19028 19028-2025 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 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 a 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 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 foot 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may - 3 - 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 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, ttingly 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 fences 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 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 ) 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 nd 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, ttingly 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 fences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. - ing 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 is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may HIMANSHU 2025.08.12 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19028 7. Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 8. parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section Code of Criminal Procedure The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep 19028-2025 quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offen 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 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 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 Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep - 4 - 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 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 Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) 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 482 of 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 quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the der 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 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 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 High Court shall be well within its The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into 482 of quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the HIMANSHU 2025.08.12 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19028 harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in th 9. the impugned 406, 498-A and 506 of IPC, at Women Police Station, District Rewari (Annexure P are hereby quashed, on the basis of 11.08.2025 himanshu 19028-2025 harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are 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, the impugned FIR No.12, dated 07.02.2022, registered under Sections 323, A and 506 of IPC, at Women Police Station, District Rewari (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: - 5 - 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 that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.12, dated 07.02.2022, registered under Sections 323, A and 506 of IPC, at Women Police Station, District Rewari equential proceedings arising therefrom compromise, qua the petitioner only. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.12, dated 07.02.2022, registered under Sections 323, A and 506 of IPC, at Women Police Station, District Rewari equential proceedings arising therefrom HIMANSHU 2025.08.12 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document