Abhimanyu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

T h e present petition has been f iled by the petitioners unde r Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa n hita, 2023 for quashing of FI R No.16 dated 2 4 .02.2021 registered under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 506 & 3 4 IPC (Sections 3 76 and 511 IPC were deleted la t er on) at Women Police Statio n Manesar, Dist r ict Gurugram (Annexure P - 1) and all other subsequen t proceedings ar i sing therefrom on the basis o f compromise dated 15.01.202 5 (Annexure P-2 ) executed between the parties. 2. L e arned counsel for the parties h ave stated that the present FI R may be quashe d as the parties have amicably s e ttled the dispute. 3. D u ring the course of preliminar y hearing, the trial Court wa s directed to rec o rd the statements of all the con c erned parties, with regard to th e genuineness an d validity of the compromise by this Court.

¶15

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M No.4681 of 2025 -2-

¶17

In compliance thereof, report d ated 27.02.2025 from learne d Judicial Magis t rate 1^st Class, Gurugram has been received through learne d District and S e ssions Judge, Gurugram, wit h statements of the parties, i n which, it has b e en mentioned that the compro m ise is genuine and there was n o undue influenc e or coercion from any side.

¶18

T h e Hon'ble Full Bench of this C o urt in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'bl e Division Benc h of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed tha t compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, durin g proceedings of the appeal against conviction p e nding in Sessions Court and i n case of involvi n g non-compoundable offence. 6. A n identical question came to b e decided by Hon'ble Suprem e Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 . Having interpreted the rele v ant provisions, it was ruled a s under:-

¶19

“ 5 7 . The position that emerges fr o m the above discussion can b e su m marised thus: the power of t he High Court in quashing a cr i minal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of it s in h erent jurisdiction is distinct an d different from the power give n to a criminal court for compoun d ing the offences under Sectio n 320 of the Code. Inherent powe r is of wide plenitude with n o st a tutory limitation but it has to b e exercised in accord with th e guideline engrafted in such pow e r viz; (i) to secure the ends o f ju s tice or (ii) to prevent abuse of t h e process of any Court. In wha t ca s es power to quash the crimi n al proceeding or complaint o r F. I .R. may be exercised where the offender and victim have settle d th e ir dispute would depend on the f acts and circumstances of eac h ca s e and no category can be pres c ribed. However, before exercis e of such power, the High Court mu s t have due regard to the natur e and gravity of the crime. Heinou s and serious offences of menta l de p ravity or offences like murde r , rape, dacoity, etc. cannot b e fit t ingly quashed even though the v ictim or victim's family and th e of f ender have settled the dispute. S uch offences are not private i n

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M No.4681 of 2025 -3-

¶22

nature and have serious impa c t on society. Similarly, an y co m promise between the victim a nd offender in relation to th e of f ences under special statutes li k e Prevention of Corruption Ac t or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceeding s in v olving such offences. But the criminal cases havin g ov e rwhelmingly and pre-domin a tingly civil flavour stand o n di ff erent footing for the purpose s of quashing, particularly th e of f ences arising from commerci a l, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transacti o ns or the offences arising out o f m a trimony relating to dowry etc. o r the family disputes where th e w r ong is basically private or per s onnel in nature and the partie s have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, Hig h C o urt may quash criminal proce e dings if in its view, because o f th e compromise between the offen d er and victim, the possibility o f co n viction is remote and bleak a n d continuation of criminal cas e w o uld put accused to great oppre s sion and prejudice and extrem e in j ustice would be caused to hi m by not quashing the crimina l ca s e despite full and complete sett l ement and compromise with th e vi c tim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether i t w o uld be unfair or contrary to t h e interest of justice to continu e wi t h the criminal proceeding o r continuation of the crimina l pr o ceeding would tantamount to a buse of process of law despit e se t tlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoe r and whether to secure the ends o f justice, it is appropriate tha t cr i minal case is put to an end a nd if the answer to the abov e question(s) is in affirmative, the H igh Court shall be well withi n its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶23

T h e same view has been reitera t ed by the Apex Court in cas e

¶24

Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR

¶25

(Criminal) 482.

¶26

H a ving regard to the contentions o f learned counsel for the partie s and the fact th a t both the parties to the litigatio n have entered into compromis e and on that ba s is, the present petition under S ection 528 of BNSS has bee n filed for quash i ng the present FIR. The comp r omise has been arrived at wit h the interventio n of the respectables and famil y members and the parties hav e decided to kee p harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence , it would be in t he interest of justice that partie s are allowed to compromise th e matter. Moreo v er, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view o f

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶28

CRM-M No.4681 of 2025 -4-

¶29

the settlement o f disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves t o be accepted in t his context. 9. In view of above, the instant pe t ition is allowed. Consequently , the impugned F IR No.16 dated 24.02.2021 reg i stered under Sections 323, 406 , 498-A, 506 & 34 IPC (Sections 376 and 51 1 IPC were deleted later on) a t Women Police Station Manesar, District Guru g ram and all other consequentia l proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quas h ed, on the basis of compromise , qua the petitio n ers only.

¶30

( NAMIT KUMAR ) JUDGE April 01, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Abhimanyu and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu and Others 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

Hemant Vs State of Haryana

Deepak Kumar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gaurav Rai Vs State of Punjab and Another

Aman Vs State of Haryana

Bhagwan Das Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab