CRM-M-1096-2025 385 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Rupinder Singh State of Haryana and other CORAM : HON’BLE Present: Mr. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl.A.G, Haryana Mr SUDEEPTI SHARMA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 08.12.2024 registered under Sections Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), registered at Police Station proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P 2. Pursuant to the order dated Sub Division Judicial Magistrate it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that t 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : Rupinder Singh and others VERSUS State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Pankaj Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl.A.G, Haryana r. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2 -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for quashing of FIR No. registered under Sections 190, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), at Police Station Shahabad, District proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2025 Judicial Magistrate, Shahabd has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that t -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1096-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.03.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Addl.A.G, Haryana. , Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya for quashing of FIR No.0964 dated 0, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), , District Kurukshetra and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated .2025, a report dated 19.02.2025 has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent Bharatiya dated Nyaya Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated .02.2025 of has been received by this Court wherein it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any he complainant/respondent Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1096-2025 No.2 and 3 have parties have also been appended with the report. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] 2025 (O&M) ve no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 2012 (10) SCC 303] has held 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 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, etc. cann 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 t -2- no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 criminal 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 ce 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 h 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, 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 no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 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 criminal 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 ce 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 h 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 ot 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 o the offences Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1096-2025 2025 (O&M) under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the crimina cases having overwhelmingly and pre 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may 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 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 c 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 th -3- under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the crimina 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 arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash 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 ontinue 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 th under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal 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 arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash 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 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 ontinuation 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1096-2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not b continue with the criminal proceedings. 6. Resultantly, 190, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), registered Kurukshetra and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. March 25, 2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Or [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not b the criminal proceedings. Resultantly, FIR No.0964 dated 08.12.2024 190, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (ii), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendmant 2015), registered at Police Station and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. , 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to 08.12.2024 registered under Sections 190, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (ii), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) at Police Station Shahabad, District and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the .2025 (Annexure P-2), is quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid s. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non- compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes e in the interest of justice to registered under Sections 190, 191 (2), 351 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (ii), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Shahabad, District and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the Gaurav Arora 2025.03.27 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document