Nitin Verma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for quashing of FIR No.254 dated 02.04.2019 (P-1), under Sections 279, 323, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 02.01.2025 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶15

Allegations are that petitioner while driving the offending car bearing registration No.HR-06Z-1251 in a rash or negligent manner inflicted injuries on the person of Ashish and Vipin (sons of de facto complainantRamphool).

¶16

Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the Rajeev Purohit parties, i.e. petitioner as well as respondent Nos.2 to 4; hence FIR in 2025.05.01 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2

¶18

question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶20

Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police officer present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶22

While issuing notice of motion on 27.01.2025, this Court has

¶23

passed the following order:-

¶24

“Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4. (2) Notice of motion.

¶25

(3) On asking of the Court, Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.

¶26

(4) Mr. Ashish Khatkar, who is present in the Court, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. The same is taken on record. He acknowledged the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶27

(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day.

¶28

(6) Petitioner shall file his affidavit that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶29

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 06.02.2025 (the date already fixed before learned trial Court) for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶30

(8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information: -

¶31

(i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner?

¶32

(ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties

¶33

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

3

¶35

is genuine and valid? (iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)? (iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof? (v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? (vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not?

¶36

(9) List before this Court on 06.03.2025 for further consideration.

¶37

(10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection?

¶38

(11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance . ”

¶39

In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 04.03.2025 has been received from learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:-

¶40

“(i) The statements of parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure of coercion etc.

¶41

(ii) As per the statements of complainant/victims and accused the compromise is genuine and valid.

¶42

(iii) As per the statements of accused and complainant/victims as well as investigating officer all the accused, complainant and injured are parties to the compromise.

¶43

(iv) As per the statements of accused and complainant/victims as well as investigating officer no other case is pending against either of the parties.

¶44

(v) As per the statement of accused as well as investigating officer, none of the person is declared proclaimed offender. (vi) As per the statements of accused and complainant/victims as well as investigating officer, accused/petitioner is not previous convict . ”

¶45

A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has

¶46

been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is no objection by either side against each other.

¶47

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

4

¶49

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-

¶50

“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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly 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 the 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 between the victim and

¶51

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

5

¶53

the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the 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.”

¶54

In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice.

¶55

Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

¶56

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶57

01.05.2025 Rajeev (rvs)	(MA	HABIR SING JUDG	H SINDHU) E
	*Whether speaking/ reasoned*	: *Yes*	/ No
	*Whether reportable*	: *Yes*	/ No

¶58

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Nitin Verma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Verma v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Amit Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Ankush Nehra and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Anita Rani Vs State of Punjab

Meenu Sehgal Vs State of Punjab

Parminder Preet Singh Sachdeva @ Parminer Preet Singh Vs State of Punjab