Vikas And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 March, 2025

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Vikas And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 March, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042678



CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M)                       1
351
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M)
                                       DATE OF DECISION: 27.03.2025

Vikas and others                                            ............Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another                                ..............Respondents

CORAM       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present     Mr.Rajesh Bansal, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.

            Mr.Akash Lather, Advocate,
            for respondent no.2.
            ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ J, (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023

praying for quashing of FIR No.0201 dated 09.05.2024, under Sections 406 and

420 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Line Kaithal, District Kaithal and all

the subsequent proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise deed

dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) entered into between the parties.

2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent

No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention

of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their

inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as

Annexure P-5. Respondent no.2 is present in Court and in pursuant to the

compromise between the parties, counsel for the petitioners has handed over

the remaining amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in cash to respondent no.2 in Court

today, the same has been accepted. On the basis of the compromise, petitioners

1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 31-03-2025 22:22:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042678

CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M) 2

are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of

these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the

Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 directed the parties to

appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as

contended before the Court, and the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also

directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Kaithal has sent the report dated 24.03.2025 to this Court. With the report

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal has also annexed the copies

statement of respondent No.2/complainant-Mahavir Singh, joint statement of

petitioners no.1 to 4, namely, Vikas, Kavita, Aman and Sohan Lal recorded on

21.03.2025 and also statement of IO Inspector ASI Manoj recorded on

21.03.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Kaithal has concluded in the report that the compromise effected

between the parties is genuine and not the result of any fraud or

misrepresentation, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. It

has been mentioned therein that the petitioners Vikas, Aman and Sohan Lal

were not declared as proclaimed offender in any case whereas petitioner no.2

Kavita has been declared proclaimed offender in complaint

No.NACT/787/2019 titled as “Madhav Rao Vs. Kavita” and ultimately she will

have to face the trial in the above said complaint.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and

the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal.

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 31-03-2025 22:22:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042678

CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M) 3

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of

the 482 Cr.P.C. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may

be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of

the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320

Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and

the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the

continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others

Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and

others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675

followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the

proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with

the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the

FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of

the judgment reads as under:-

“61. 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

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 31-03-2025 22:22:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042678

CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M) 4
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. 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 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 cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
a 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, the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the 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,

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 31-03-2025 22:22:07 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042678

CRM-M NO.14074-2025(O&M) 5
the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put
to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

9. Applying the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of

judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered

into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an

abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the

petitioner by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is

primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR

No. 0201 dated 09.05.2024, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, registered at

Police Station Civil Line Kaithal, District Kaithal and all the subsequent

proceedings arising thereto are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis

of compromise. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms

and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the

Court below.

11. Petition stands allowed.

27.03.2025                                               (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
mamta                                                          JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned     Yes/No
             Whether reportable            Yes/No




                                         5 of 5
                    ::: Downloaded on - 31-03-2025 22:22:07 :::