IN THE 282 Prince State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. for Mr. Mr. **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Prayer Nagarik Suraksha 17.07.2025 under Police Station, subsequent proceedings 07.11.2025 (Annexure 2. The of Harsh, son of part of which reads “On house. resident from from motorcycle in a THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-64831 Date of decision: VERSUS Haryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate (through the petitioners. Mr. Armaan Dahiya, AAG, Haryana. r. Deepak, Advocate for respondent **** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing under Sections 281 and 125 (B) of Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, District proceedings arising therefrom on the (Annexure P-2). The FIR in the present case has been of Raj Kumar, resident of Village reads as under:- On 15-07-2025, at around 3:00 PM, house. At that time, my grandfather resident of Sarai Aurangabad, was from the house. While crossing the from the direction of PDM on which motorcycle rider was driving the vehicle a negligent and careless manner, PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 64831-2025 (O&M) decision: 12.02.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ (through V.C.) . respondent No.2. Section 528 of the Bharatiya quashing of FIR No.190 dated the BNS, 2023, registered at District Jhajjar along with all the basis of compromise dated been registered on the statement Village Sarai, Aurangabad, relevant PM, I was standing outside my grandfather Raj Singh, son of Mir Singh, was going towards the market the road, a motorcycle came which two boys were riding. The vehicle at very high speed and manner, due to which he hit my SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -2- grandfather directly. After being hit, my grandfather fell on the road and received serious injuries. I, along with people from the village, picked him up. I saw the motorcycle number HR13U 5059 (Hero Splendor). When I asked the motorcycle rider his name, he told me his name is: Hans, son of Tara Chand, resident of Mandothi. We (myself, Hans, and the second boy on the bike) took my injured grandfather to Mission Hospital, Patel, Bahadurgarh for treatment.This accident occurred due to Hans driving the motorcycle at high speed and with negligence. Therefore, I request that legal action be taken against the motorcycle and its driver. XXX" 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 17.11.2025 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. 5 Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh vide Memo No.1182 dated 24.12.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under: - “Further, detailed reply is hereunder as directed:- 1. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, only one person namely Prince was found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR. 2. As per the statement of investigating officer, two victims are there namely Harsh (Complainant) and Raj Singh (Injured). 3. The sole accused in this case namely Prince, complainant SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -3- Harsh & Injured Raj Singh have appeared before the Court and have signed their compromise statement. 4. No affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court. 5. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, accused has neither been declared proclaimed offender/person nor any proceeding has been initiated or pending adjudication. 6. In my opinion, the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. 7. There is no other aspect relevant in the present case.” 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. 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -4- 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 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -5- 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 the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 9. 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 dispute giving rise to the FIR is that the petitioner was SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -6- driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in an accident with the grandfather of the respondent No.2, who suffered various injuries and was hospitalized. However, the petitioner and the complainant took the latter’s injured grandfather to the hospital, thus showing good Samaritan behaviour on the former’s part. ii. The parties have amicably resolved their dispute, and the compromise has been entered into voluntarily, without any coercion, pressure, or undue influence. iii. Petitioner is a young individual aged about 21 years, standing at the threshold of his adult life. Subjecting him to prolonged criminal prosecution would have a disproportionate and irreversible adverse impact on his future, education, and prospects. iv. The offence(s) alleged can neither be characterised as heinous or of such gravity as to shock the collective conscience of society, nor do they partake the nature of offences that would shock the conscience of the Court. v. Permitting the prosecution to continue, despite the settlement, would result in abuse of the process of law and unnecessary wastage of valuable judicial time. 10. In view of the report of Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bahadurgarh 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 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 282 CRM-M-64831-2025 (O&M) -7- instant petition is allowed. FIR No.190 dated 17.07.2025 under Sections 281 and 125 (B) of the BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed in view of the compromise dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P-2). 11. Petition is allowed in above terms. 12.02.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.23 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document