The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-23208-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (258) Rahul CRM-M-23208-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.5.2025 ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present:
Legal Reasoning
The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non- compoundable offence and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:- Gurpreet Singh 2025.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh “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 CRM-M-23208-2025 -4- 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. xxx xxx xxx. ” 8. In view of the compromise, the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466’, ‘Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834’ and ‘Shakuntala Sawhney (Mrs) Vs. Kaushalya (Mrs.) and others (1980) 1 SCC 63’ and Full Bench of this Court in ‘Kulwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052’ and after perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed. 9. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0046 dated 27.6.2024, under Sections 323, 376, 450, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women Police Station Bhiwani, District Bhiwani and all other consequential proceedings are quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis of the compromise dated 23.4.2025 (Annexure P-6), subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of one month. Gurpreet Singh 2025.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23208-2025 -5- 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. May 27, 2025 Gurpreet Singh (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No Gurpreet Singh 2025.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Arguments
Mr. V.P.Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 0046 dated 27.6.2024, under Sections 323, 376, 450, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Women Police Station Bhiwani, District Bhiwani and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 23.4.2025 (Annexure P-6). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Kapil Gupta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another”, 2022 (4) RCR (Crl.) 497, to contend that FIR under Section 376 of IPC (now Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel has further relied upon a Gurpreet Singh 2025.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh judgment of this Court in “Karan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and CRM-M-23208-2025 -2- another”, 2021(1) Law Herald 149 and contends that once the parties have compromised the matter and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file. 4. This Court while directing the parties to appear before the Area Magistrate/trial Court for recording their statements with regard to the compromise, passed the following order on 1.5.2025:- “Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing of FIR No. 0046 dated 27.6.2024 under Sections 323, 376, 450 and 506 IPC, registered at Women Police Station, Bhiwani along with all the subsequent proceedings arising thereform, on the basis of compromise dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure P-6). 2. 3. Notice of motion. Upon advance notice, Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and files her power of attorney in Court, which is taken on record. She has admitted the factum of compromise and supports the prayer made in the petition. 4. In view of the above, the parties and the Investigating Officer are directed to appear before the Area Magistrate/Trial Court on 14.05.2025 or any day thereafter as fixed by the Trial Court, for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise. The Area Magistrate/Trial Court shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing specifying the following:- 1. The number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/P.O., in the case; 2. The name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. The stage of the trial/proceedings pending; Gurpreet Singh 2025.05.29 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-23208-2025 -3- 4. If, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties; 5. Whether any other criminal case pending against the accused. 5. Report of the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate be awaited for 19.05.2025.” 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 15.5.2025 has been received from the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion. 6.