IN THE 262 Shivani Malik and State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Prayer Nagarik Suraksha 11.04.2025 under 2023 registered subsequent proceedings 07.09.2025 (Annexure 2. The complaint of Sa relevant part of which “…It worked Creation Gurgaon. (8700711581) me THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56024 Date of decision: and others VERSUS Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate for the Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Mandeep, Advocate for Mr. Ritesh Malik, Advocate for respondent **** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), registered at Police Station Sector 37, proceedings arising therefrom on the (Annexure P-2). The FIR in the present case has Santosh Kumar Yadav, Proprietor which reads as under:- “…It is to bring in your kind knowledge worked and provided manpower Creation Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 10 Gurgaon. Mr. Mahesh MD (8397377177) (8700711581) during October 2024. to provide manpower through PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 56024-2025 (O&M) decision: 09.02.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate and the petitioners. . respondent No.2 Section 528 of the Bharatiya quashing of FIR No.67 dated 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of BNS, 37, Gurugram along with all the basis of compromise dated has been registered on the Proprietor Daksh Security Services, knowledge that undersigned manpower services to Urban soul 10 Phase City-1 Sector-17, (8397377177) and Shivam Director 2024. Mr. Mahesh approached through Shivam HR Head SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -2- (9289714917) and after negotiations the deal was finalized and we entered into the agreement. As per terms and condition of the agreement the payment shall make on or before 10th day of each succeeding month. In this regards invoice was raised vide invoice no DSS/24-23/270 dated 7th Nov 2024 of amount Rs. 26,11,020 (Twenty Six Lakh Eleven Thousand Twenty) of the manpower provided as per details send vide his mail. But shall nothing has been paid and every time excuses were given. He has default intention and avoidance to repay the Invoice amount. For my payment I visited many times but the result is same and now they are also threatening me. With my local enquiry it has been came in notice that they are doing big fraud, dishonestly deceiving and cheating different vendors and every month they searched new vendors/ agency with same motive. Around 4-5 agency came in touch (the numbers may be more) with whom they had done same i.e (Mr. Karan KPRV Services Mob: 9971997990. Mr Bhupendar SSS Manpower Mob 7900009314, Mr. Amarjeet J.D Security, mob 8881307777). If proper enquiry will be taken place the fraud cheating may be in crore and information also getting that they are planning to run away from this location to another city for doing the same. Sir/Madam, This area is under your kind command and control and they feel free of doing such crime. I am still coming to the factory for my payment and I am very much afraid of my life. They can go any extent.” 3. However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition. 4 The parties were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 01.10.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -3- 5 Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, vide Memo No.584 dated 09.12.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under: - “4. In view of the statements suffered by the parties and oral inquiries of the complainant/victims, the undersigned is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably/voluntarily without any pressure or coercion. The report is accordingly submitted for the kind perusal of his lordship on the following points: 1) There are three accused in the aforesaid FIR. 2) There is one complainant in the persent FIR. 3) Yes, all the accused and complainant are party to the compromise and signed the same. 4) No effected person is left out or not arrayed as party in the compromise signed before this court. 5) In the present FIR no accused has been declared as a proclaimed person or no such proceedings has been initiated or pending adjudication against any of the accused. 6) The compromise entered between the parties is genuine, voluntarily without any coercion and without any undue influence. 7) The Investigation officer of the case recorded his statement, submitting that all the accused persons are involved in other six FIRs of similar nature against different complainant which are as under: 1. FIR No. 53 dated 02.04.2025, u/s 316(5), 318 (4), SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -4- 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S Sector-37, Gurugram. 2. FIR No. 89 dated 15.05.2025, u/s 316(5), 318 (4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S Sector-37, Gurugram. 3. FIR No. 181 dated 27.03.2025, u/s 316(5), 318 (4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S Sadar, Gurugram. 4. FIR No. 262 dated 23.04.2025, u/s 316(5), 318 (4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S Sector-10A, Gurugram. 5. FIR No. 191 dated 30.05.2025, u/s 316(5), 318 (4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS, P.S Bhondsi, Gurugram. 6. FIR No. 144 dated 25.06.2024, u/s 323, 506, 34 IPC, P.S Sector-37, Gurugram.” 6. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed. 8. Parties doe not dispute that a mere multiplicity of cases is not a bar to quash proceedings in light of settlement. 9. The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -5- State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641'. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: ”16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -6- dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -7- the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 10. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section 528 BNSS:- i. The genesis of the complaint arises out of a manpower supply agreement between two business entities. The grievance essentially pertains to non-payment of invoice amount under agreed contractual terms. Such disputes are ordinarily civil in nature and amenable to remedies for recovery, arbitration or proceedings under commercial law. ii. The transactions were conducted through a written agreement, email correspondence and formally raised invoices. The relationship between the parties was commercial, indicating a business arrangement rather than a clandestine or fraudulent scheme at inception. iii. Delayed payment or financial distress of a company does not automatically translate into criminal misappropriation. Commercial defaults, particularly in ongoing business operations, are common in trade and must be distinguished from deliberate cheating. iv. Significantly, he parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence, thereby restoring peace and harmony between them. v. Petitioners are in their twenties and subjecting them to prolonged SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CRM-M-56024-2025 (O&M) -8- criminal prosecution would have a disproportionate and irreversible adverse impact on their future prospects. vi. In view of the compromise, the likelihood of conviction is remote, as the complainant is no longer inclined to support the prosecution case, rendering the continuation of proceedings a futile exercise. vii. Permitting the prosecution to continue, despite the settlement, would result in abuse of the process of law and unnecessary wastage of valuable judicial time. 11. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641', the instant petition is allowed. FIR No.67 dated 11.04.2025 under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of BNS, 2023 registered at Police Station Sector 37, Gurugram along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed in view of the compromise dated 07.09.2025 (Annexure P-2). 12. Petition is allowed in above terms. 09.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.18 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document