CRM-M No.460 IN THE 252 Jitesh Kumar und State of Haryana CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Ms. for t Mr. Mr. for r *** NAMIT KUMA 1. Rece petitioners qua Welfare Fund in 2. The Section 528 of FIR No.83 dated 506 IPC (Section Station-Women W subsequent proce 29.07.2024 (Ann 46046 of 2024 (O&M) -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of De und another Versus ryana and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate and Ms. Shwas Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** UMAR, J. (ORAL) Receipt dated 27.11.2024 furnish qua deposit of costs of Rs.10,000 nd in the court today, is taken on reco The present petition has been fil of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha S dated 07.08.2021 under Sections 323, Section 34, 354 and 377 IPC deleted omen West Police Station, Gurugram t proceedings arising therefrom on th (Annexure P-2) executed between the JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH M No.46046 of 2024 (O&M) e of Decision:27.01.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondents AMIT KUMAR and ryana. furnished by the counsel for the 0,000/- with High Court Lawyers n record. een filed by the petitioners under ksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of 323, 34, 354, 377, 406, 498-A and eleted later on) registered at Police ugram (Annexure P-1) and all other on the basis of compromise dated een the parties. s the yers nder g of and olice other ated PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.28 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.460 3. Lear may be quashed a 4. Duri directed to record genuineness and 5. In c Judicial Magistra District and Ses which, it has bee undue influence o 6. The State of Punjab Division Bench Haryana and compounding of proceedings of th case of involving 7. An Court in case Gia (Criminal) 543 under:- “57. sum crim inhe to a 320 statu guid 46046 of 2024 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the parties hav ashed as the parties have amicably sett During the course of preliminary record the statements of all the concer ss and validity of the compromise by th In compliance thereof, report dat agistrate 1st Class, Gurugram has b d Sessions Judge, Gurugram, with as been mentioned that the compromis ence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Cou njab and another, 2007(3) RCR ( ench of this Court in case Sube Sin nd another, 2013(4) RCR (Cr ing of offence can be allowed ev s of the appeal against conviction pen olving non-compoundable offence. An identical question came to be Gian Singh Versus State of Punja ) 543. Having interpreted the relevan 57. The position that emerges from summarised thus: the power of th criminal proceeding or FIR or inherent jurisdiction is distinct and to a criminal court for compoundi 320 of the Code. Inherent power statutory limitation but it has to be uideline engrafted in such power ies have stated that the present FIR ly settled the dispute. inary hearing, the trial Court was concerned parties, with regard to the e by this Court. rt dated 02.01.2025 from learned has been received through learned with statements of the parties, in promise is genuine and there was no is Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. CR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble e Singh and another vs. State of (Criminal) 102 observed that ed even after conviction, during on pending in Sessions Court and in to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme unjab and another, 2012(4) RCR relevant provisions, it was ruled as from the above discussion can be of the High Court in quashing a or complaint in exercise of its and different from the power given unding the offences under Section wer is of wide plenitude with no to be exercised in accord with the wer viz; (i) to secure the ends of FIR was o the rned rned s, in as no vs. n'ble of that uring nd in reme CR d as be a its ven ion no the of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.28 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.460 justi case F.I.R their case of su and depr fittin offen natu com offen or t invo over diffe offen part matr wro have Cou the conv wou inju case victi wou with proc settl and crim ques its ju 8. The Narinder Singh (Criminal) 482. 9. Hav and the fact that and on that basi 46046 of 2024 (O&M) -3- justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the cases power to quash the crimina F.I.R. may be exercised where the o their dispute would depend on the fa case and no category can be prescri of such power, the High Court must and gravity of the crime. Heinous a depravity or offences like murder, fittingly quashed even though the vi offender have settled the dispute. Su nature and have serious impact compromise between the victim an offences under special statutes like or the offences for any basis for q involving such offences. But overwhelmingly and pre-dominati different footing for the purposes offences arising from commercial partnership or such like transaction matrimony relating to dowry etc. or wrong is basically private or perso have resolved their entire dispute. I Court may quash criminal proceed the compromise between the offende conviction is remote and bleak and would put accused to great oppress injustice would be caused to him case despite full and complete settle victim. In other words, the High C would be unfair or contrary to the with the criminal proceeding or proceeding would tantamount to ab settlement and compromise betwee and whether to secure the ends of criminal case is put to an end an question(s) is in affirmative, the Hi its jurisdiction to quash the criminal The same view has been reiterated ngh and others Vs. State of Punja ) 482. Having regard to the contentions of t that both the parties to the litigation t basis, the present petition under Se f the process of any Court. In what inal proceeding or complaint or he offender and victim have settled he facts and circumstances of each escribed. However, before exercise must have due regard to the nature ous and serious offences of mental der, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be e victim or victim's family and the e. Such offences are not private in pact on society. Similarly, any m and offender in relation to the like Prevention of Corruption Act or quashing criminal proceedings ut the criminal cases having inatingly civil flavour stand on ses of quashing, particularly the rcial, financial, mercantile, civil, tions or the offences arising out of c. or the family disputes where the ersonnel in nature and the parties te. In this category of cases, High ceedings if in its view, because of fender and victim, the possibility of and continuation of criminal case ression and prejudice and extreme him by not quashing the criminal ettlement and compromise with the h Court must consider whether it the interest of justice to continue or continuation of the criminal to abuse of process of law despite tween the victim and wrongdoer s of justice, it is appropriate that d and if the answer to the above e High Court shall be well within inal proceeding.” iterated by the Apex Court in case unjab and another, 2014(2) RCR ons of learned counsel for the parties gation have entered into compromise der Section 528 of BNSS has been hat or led ch ise ure tal be the in ny the Act ngs ing on the vil, t of the ties igh of of ase me nal the r it ue nal ite oer hat ove hin case CR rties mise been PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.28 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.460 filed for quashin the intervention decided to keep h it would be in the matter. Moreove the settlement of be accepted in th 10. In v the impugned FI 406, 498-A and registered at Pol other consequent basis of comprom January 27, 202 Pankaj* 46046 of 2024 (O&M) -4- uashing the present FIR. The compro ntion of the respectables and family keep harmony between them and to liv the interest of justice that parties a reover, learned counsel for the partie ent of disputes between the parties, th d in this context. In view of above, the instant petiti FIR No.83 dated 07.08.2021 unde and 506 IPC (Section 34, 354 an Police Station-Women West Polic equential proceedings arising therefro mpromise, qua the petitioners only. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable ompromise has been arrived at with amily members and the parties have d to live peacefully in future. Hence, arties are allowed to compromise the parties are ad idem that, in view of ties, the present petition deserves to t petition is allowed. Consequently, 1 under Sections 323, 34, 354, 377, 54 and 377 IPC deleted later on) olice Station, Gurugram and all erefrom are hereby quashed, on the (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No with have ence, e the w of es to ntly, 377, ) d all n the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.28 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh