CRM-M-25511-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 290 CRM-M-25511-2026 NARVIR ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Date of Uploading: 06.07.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Abhishek Sindwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. ORAL 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.271 dated 18.09.2025 under Sections 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind and challan dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), which is stated to have been effected between the parties. 2 On 07.05.2026, the following order was passed: “The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Notice of motion. JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 2 On the asking of Court, Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/State. At this juncture, Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate causes appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 and has filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record. Learned counsel has ratified that the matter has been compromised. Accordingly, the parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 13.5.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioners as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/ Illaqa Magistrate. (ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer. (iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned: (i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition? JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 3 (ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition? (iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender? The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 6.7.2026. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ₹30,000/- as costs with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association, Chandigarh (Regd. No.2441/1995) Bank Account No.65004775776, State Bank of India, IFC Code SBIN0050306, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for hereinabove. It is explicit that the payment of costs and recording of statements shall not be construed as any kind of equity in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.05.2026 from Sessions Judge, Jind, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “The present case FIR bearing No.271 dated 18.09.2025 has been registered on the basis of statement dated 18.09.2025 of complainant namely Balraj Gill son of Shri Ramphal, aged about 38 years, resident of village Alipura, District Jind, against accused Narvir son of Joginder, aged approximately 28 years, resident of Alipura, District Jind, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1) BNS, at P.S.Uchana(District Jind). 2. In compliance of order dated 07.05.2026 passed in CRM-M- 25511-2026 titled "Narvir vs. State of Haryana and another" by Hon'ble Justice Mr. Sumeet Goel, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in FIR bearing No.271 dated 18.09.2025, registered at Police Station, Uchana (District Jind), the complainant Balraj Gill son of Shri Ramphal as well accused Narvir son of Joginder, have put their appearance before the Court on 13.05.2026. 3. As directed, statements of complainant/victim- affected party Balraj Gill Son of Ramphal and accused Narvir son of Joginder, present before the Court, have been recorded in respect of settlement/effecting compromise between them in aforesaid FIR. Aforenamed complainant Balraj Gill has appeared alongwith his counsel(s) Shri D.S.Chahal and Shri Atinder Singh Chahal, Advocates and accused Narvir has appeared alongwith counsel Dr. R.S.Sindhwani, Advocate. JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 4 4. Complainant namely Balraj Gill has made a statement that pursuant to his statement dated 18.09.2025, the present FIR No.271 dated 18.09.2025, under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023, was registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind, against Narvir son of Joginder, resident of Village Alipura, District Jind. Apart from him, no other person sustained any injuries in the incident in question. He and accused Narvir belong to the same family. A compromise has now been arrived at between him and Narvir, with the assistance of their family members and friends. Their differences have been resolved. He is not under any kind of pressure Copy of Compromise Deed Exhibit C1 bears his signatures, which is being submitted herewith. He has no objection in case of quashment of case FIR No.271, dated 18.09.2025, registered under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023, against accused Narvir, at Police Station, Uchana, District Jind. He does not want any action against accused Narvir. Apart from Narvir, there is no other accused named in this FIR. or coercion whatsoever. 5. Accused Narvir son of Joginder, aged approximately 28 years, resident of Alipura, District Jind has also made a statement that a compromise has been reached between him and the complainant Balraj, son of Rampal, resident of Village Alipura, District Jind. This settlement has been arrived at without any coercion or undue pressure. They (complainant and accused) have affixed their signatures to the copy of Compromise Deed marked as Exhibit C1. Now, there is no grievance left between them. There is no other criminal case registered against him, nor he has ever been declared as Proclaimed Offender (P.O.) in the present case or in any other case. In compliance with the order dated 07.05.2026 of the Hon'ble High Court Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, he has ₹ deposited a sum of 30,000/- as costs in Bank Account No.65004775776 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerk Association, Chandigarh (Regn. No.2441/1995). The receipt is enclosed herewith. As per statement dated 18.05.2026, of the Investigating Officer namely SI Rajinder (presently posted at P.S.Sadar, Jind), in the present case FIR No.271 dated 18.09.2025, P.S. Uchana, Narvir son of Joginder, resident of village Alipura, District Jind is the only accused. Accused Narvir had not been declared proclaimed offender either in the present case or in any other case. In the aforesaid FIR, Balraj Gill son of Shri Ramphal, resident of village Alipura, District Jind is the only complainant-cum-injured. Except him, there is no other affected party. 6. From the aforenoted/recorded statements of parties, it is apparent that in order to maintain the peace and harmony, they have amicably settled the matter with the intervention of near relatives and respectables/ friends, as per their free will, JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 5 voluntarily and without any threat or coercion. Copy of compromise deed Ex.C1 has also been placed on record duly signed by both the appearing parties. Complainant Balraj Gill has no objection in case of quashment of the proceedings against accused Narvir in the aforesaid FIR, registered at Police Station City, Uchana. He has been duly identified by his counsel(s). Thus, it is safely concluded that compromise has been voluntarily (without any kind of influence or coercion) effected between the parties (complainant -aggrieved/only affected party namely Balraj Gill and accused Narvir booked in the FIR), which appears to be genuine/valid, in the present FIR bearing No.271 dated 18.09.2025, registered at Police Station City Uchana. ” 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed. 5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-1). 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. JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 6 (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (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 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 :- JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-25511-2026 7 (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.271 dated 18.09.2025 under Sections 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 (Section 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Uchana, District Jind and challan dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 04.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), are, hereby, quashed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 06.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2026.07.06 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document