CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127+275 CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2025 VIJAY SHARMA & ANR. ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. H.S. Jakhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0076 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 66, 72, 66-B, 66-C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Panchkula and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties. 2. On 10.07.2025, the following order was passed: “Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2. (2) Notice of motion. (3) Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. (4) Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, which is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. He acknowledged the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No. 2. (5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day. (6) Petitioners JATIN 2025.09.15 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) 2 shall file their respective affidavits that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against them and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise. (7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 12.08.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them. (8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- (i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner? (ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid? (iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)? (iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof? (v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? (vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not? (9) List before this Court on 15.09.2025 for further consideration. (10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection? (11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and compliance.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.08.2025 from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “1. Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner; The compromise arrived between complainant Param Gupta and accused persons namely Vijay Sharma and Jatin Jain appears to be genuine, voluntary and entered into with free will between the parties and without any coercion or undue influence. Separate statement of the complainant, victim as well as accused persons was also recorded to this effect on 06.08.2025. Copy of compromise dated 02.07.2025 placed on record as Ex.Cl. The parties in their statement submitted that they have entered into a compromise without any fear or pressure and have no objection in case the FIR is quashed by Hon'ble High Court. 2. Whether the compromise effected between the parties is geninue and valid? The compromise arrived between complainant Param Gupta and accused persons namely Vijay Sharma and Jatin Jain appears to be genuine, voluntary and entered into with free will between the parties and without any coercion or undue influence. 3. Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person (s)? JATIN 2025.09.15 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) 3 As per the statement of I.O, all the accused persons and complainant as party to the compromise. 4. Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof? As per the statement of I.O, no other criminal case is pending against the either of the parties. 5. Whether the accused persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? As per the statement of I.O, none of the accused is declared proclaimed offender. 6. Whether any of the petitioner(s) is / are previous convict or not? As per the Statement of I.O., none of the petitioners were previously convicted.” 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed. 5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 7. This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is : (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. JATIN 2025.09.15 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) 4 (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. (d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. (e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the JATIN 2025.09.15 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35818-2025 (O&M) 5 above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well. 8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :- (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice. (ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature. (v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0076 dated 12.06.2025 under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 66, 72, 66-B, 66-C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Panchkula and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/settlement dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P- 2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 15.09.2025 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2025.09.15 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document