Allowed¶64

Sandeep and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CRM-M/4437/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M), Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided 13.05.2025 by Justice Mahabir Singhu Sindhu — quashing of FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, qua petitioners (Sandeep and others) on compromise dated 15.01.2025 with respondent No.2; petition under Section 528 BNSS; SDJM Kharkhoda report dated 17.02.2025; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; offence personal in nature, ends of justice; pending applications disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024 (Sections 406 and 420 IPC, P.S. Kharkhoda, District Sonipat) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise dated 15.01.2025. ¶64

Sandeep and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 15.01.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The offence is entirely personal in nature and does not involve public funds; therefore, quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the compromise would bring peace and harmony and secure the ends of justice, consistent with the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

On the report of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the matter stands compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶56

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024 along with all subsequent proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed: FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, together with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and the report dated 17.02.2025 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharkhoda (compromise willful, voluntary, without pressure; complainant and all five named accused parties thereto; no proclaimed offender, no charge sheet, no previous conviction), the Court held the offence entirely personal in nature, not involving public funds, so that quashing would bring peace and harmony and secure the ends of justice.

¶1

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M)

¶2

128

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2025

Sandeep and others

... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. Sanchit Punia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

¶12

Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

¶13

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶14

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) praying for quashing of FIR No.529 dated 18.09.2024 (P-1), under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC), registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 15.01.2025 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶15

Allegations are that petitioners in connivance with each other cheated while forging and fabricating the agreement to sell dated 09.12.2022 regarding the plot belonging to de facto- complainant.

¶16

Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as well as subsequent proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶18

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-1-

¶20

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M)

¶21

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

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶23

This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 27.01.2025, passed the following order:-

¶24

“ Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶25

(2) Notice of motion.

¶26

(3) At this stage, Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, learned A.A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1State.

¶27

(4) Mr. Saurabh, Advocate for Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate, causes representation on behalf of respondent No.2 and acknowledges the factum of compromise between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶28

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

¶29

(6) Petitioners shall file their respective affidavits that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against them and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶30

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 17.02.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶31

(8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and

¶32

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

-2-

¶34

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M)

¶35

victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-

¶36

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

¶37

(ii) Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid?

¶38

(iii) Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)?

¶39

(iv) Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof?

¶40

(v) Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender?

¶41

(vi) Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not?

¶42

(9) List before this Court on 18.03.2025 for further consideration.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 17.02.2025 has been received from learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharkhoda, Sonipat. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:-

¶46

“ As per FIR, name of the complainant is Urmila wife of late Umesh Kumar and five persons namely Sandeep, Tarun, Deepak Dahiya, Ajay and Deepak son of Muni Ram are accused.

¶47

None of the accused is declared a proclaimed person in this case.

¶48

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

-3-

¶50

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M)

¶51

The compromise is willful and without any pressure or mis-representation.

¶52

No charge sheet is filed in this case and there is no record of previous conviction as per report of Ahlmad.

¶53

The complainant and all named accused are party to the compromise.

¶54

As per office report, no accused is a previous convict.”

¶55

A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter

¶56

has 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.

¶57

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

¶58

“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

¶59

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

-4-

¶61

CRM-M-4437-2025 (O&M)

¶62

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 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.”

¶63

In view of above, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not involve public funds. 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.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

13.05.2025		(MAHABIR SINGH	SINDHU)
Harish Kumar		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/ reasoned	: Yes /	No
	Whether reportable	: Yes /	No

¶67

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

-5-

Sandeep and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surajdeen Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Sahil Alias Pava Vs State of Haryana

Balveer Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurlal Singh Alias Bhangu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.