Allowed¶39

Amulya Kumar Mishara and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Orthers

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2025CRM-M/1929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M No.1929-2025 (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.; decision 14.05.2025): FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024 (Sections 420 and 120-B IPC), PS DLF Phase-I Gurugram, and consequent proceedings quashed qua petitioners on compromise; reliance on Narinder Singh, B.S. Joshi, Kulwinder Singh (FB) and application of Gian Singh para 61; Section 528 BNSS 2023 / Section 482 Cr.P.C. invoked.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram, Haryana, and all the subsequent/consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise; parties bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. ¶39

Amulya Kumar Mishara and Ors. Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

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, as per the settled law in Narinder Singh, B.S. Joshi, Kulwinder Singh (Full Bench of this Court) and Gian Singh.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Where the parties have entered into a compromise, continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the FIR on accepting the petitioners' prayer would secure the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶37

Key takeaways

The case squarely falls within the parameters settled by judicial precedents; FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram, and all the subsequent proceedings arising thereto are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise, and the parties shall remain bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on compromise — Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram, along with all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) between the petitioners and the complainant/injured respondents. Acting on this Court's order dated 16.01.2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram reported (report dated 11.03.2025) that the compromise is genuine, voluntary, without fraud, coercion or undue influence, and that the petitioners were not declared proclaimed offenders. Relying on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kulwinder Singh 2007(3) RCR 1052, and applying Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61 summarising the guidelines for quashing upon compromise), the Court held that continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process, and that quashing would secure the ends of justice, the primary object of Section 482 Cr.P.C. FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioners; parties bound by the compromise terms and their statements before the Court below. Petition allowed.

¶1

CRM-M NO.1929-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(382) CRM-M NO.1929-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 14.05.2025

¶5

Amulya Kumar Mishra and others

¶6

............Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

..............Respondents

¶10

CORAM HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶11

Present Mr.Vibhu Agnihotri Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Vijesh Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana.

¶13

Mr.Pushp Jain, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3. *******

¶14

RAJESH BHARDWAJ J, (ORAL)

¶15

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing of FIR No.342/2024 dated 14.11.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram, Haryana along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) entered into between the parties.

¶16

FIR in question was got registered by complainant – respondent No.2 and injured-respondent no.3 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-2. On the basis of the compromise, petitioners 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.

¶17

Mamta 2025.05.15 16:32

¶18

¶19

CRM-M NO.1929-2025

¶20

This Court vide order dated 16.01.2025 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.

¶21

Short reply by way of affidavit of Abhimanyu Lohan, HPS, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, EOW, Gurugram, was filed by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 – State.

¶22

In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram has sent the report dated 11.03.2025 to this Court. With the report learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram has also annexed the original statement of respondent No.2/complainant-Ankur Shokeen, statement of respondent no.3-injured Anjali Shokeen recorded on 28.02.2025, statements of petitioners no.1 to 6, namely, Amulya Kumar Mishra, Monalisha Bez, Amit Katyal, recorded on 28.02.2025, statements of Yogendra Singh, Ramandeep Kaur Khurana and Jasdeep Singh Khurana recorded on 14.02.2025 and also statement of ASI Amit Kumar recorded on 14.02.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram 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 were not declared as proclaimed offender in this case.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram. 7. 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 Mamta 2025.05.15 16:32

¶24

CRM-M NO.1929-2025 3

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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:-

¶28

“ 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 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

¶29

Mamta 2025.05.15 16:32

¶30

CRM-M NO.1929-2025

¶31

¶32

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, 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

¶33

Mamta 2025.05.15 16:32

¶34

CRM-M NO.1929-2025

¶35

¶36

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.”

¶37

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 petitioners 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.

¶38

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. 342/2024 dated 14.11.2024, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF, Phase I, Gurugram. Haryana 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.

¶39

Petition stands allowed.

¶40

14.05.2025 mamta

¶41

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE

¶42

Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable

¶43

Yes/No Yes/No

¶44

Mamta 2025.05.15 16:32

Amulya Kumar Mishara and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Orthers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amulya Kumar Mishara and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Orthers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardev Singh Alias Dev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harwinder Singh Alias Harvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Nirbhay Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Garv Sharma @ Noni through Ram Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakshish Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another