Sachin Alias Tower Alias Sachin Goyal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Present: M r. Rohit Mittal, Advocate for t h e petitioners. M r. Vishal Singh, Asstt. A.G., H a ryana. M r. Kartik Mittal, Advocate for r espondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

T his is a petition filed under S ection 528 Bharatiya Nagari k Suraksha Sa n hita (BNSS), 2023, for qu a shing of FIR No.405, date d 04.12.2025, u nder Sections 190, 191(3), 351(3), 126, 117(2), 115, 109(1 ) BNS, at Poli c e Station City Narnaul, Distric t Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1 ) and subseque n t proceedings arising therefro m on the basis of compromis e dated 06.03.2 0 26 (Annexure P-2).

¶15

T his Court vide order dated 07. 0 5.2026 had directed the partie s to appear bef o re the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate t o get their statements recorde d and the learned Magistrate was directed to se n d its report qua the genuinenes s of the compro m ise.

¶16

P ursuant to the aforesaid order, p arties have appeared before th e Chief Judicia l Magistrate, Narnaul and got t h eir statements recorded. On th e

¶17

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶18

CRM-M-16965-2026 2

¶19

basis of the statements so recorded, Chief J u dicial Magistrate, Narnaul ha s submitted rep o rt dated 18.05.2026 to the effe c t that the compromise has bee n effected betw e en the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undu e influence.

¶20

L earned State counsel as well a s counsel for respondent No. 2 have not disp u ted the factum of compromise b etween the parties. 5. I n view of the above, no usef u l purpose would be served t o continue with the proceedings before the trial C ourt in the instant FIR. 6. T he Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the matter o f “Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab”2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 a s

¶21

follows:-

¶22

“31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay dow n t h e following principles by which the High Court would b e g u ided in giving adequate treatm e nt to the settlement between th e p a rties and exercising its power under section 482 of the Cod e w hile accepting the settlement a n d quashing the proceedings o r r e fusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue wit h t h e criminal proceedings : ( I) Power conferred under sec t ion 482 of the Code is to b e d i stinguished from the power which lies in the Court t o c o mpound the offences under Se c tion 320 of the Code. No doubt, u n der section 482 of the Code , the High Court has inheren t p o wer to quash the criminal p r oceedings even in those case s w hich are not compoundable, w h ere the parties have settled th e m atter between themselves. Ho wever, this power is to b e e x ercised sparingly and with cau t ion. ( I I) When the parties have reached the settlement and on tha t b a sis petition for quashing the c r iminal proceedings is filed, th e g u iding factor in such cases wou l d be to secure : ( i) ends of justice, or

¶23

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶24

CRM-M-16965-2026

¶25

3

¶26

( i i) to prevent abuse of the p rocess of any Court. Whil e e x ercising the power the High C ourt is to form an opinion o n e i ther of the aforesaid two object i ves. ( I II) Such a power is not be e xercised in those prosecution s w hich involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravit y o r offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are no t p r ivate in nature and have a seri o us impact on society. Similarly, f o r offences alleged to have been committed under special statut e like the Prevention of Corruptio n Act or the offences committe d b y Public Servants while workin g in that capacity are not to b e q u ashed merely on the basis of c ompromise between the victi m a n d the offender. ( I V) On the other, those crimin a l cases having overwhelmingl y a n d pre-dominantly civil charact e r, particularly those arising ou t o f commercial transactions o r arising out of matrimonia l r e lationship or family disputes should be quashed when th e p a rties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V ) W hile exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as t o w hether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak an d c o ntinuation of criminal cases w ould put the accused to grea t o p pression and prejudice and ex t reme injustice would be cause d t o him by not quashing the crimi n al cases. ( V I) Offences under Section 307 I .P.C. would fall in the categor y o f heinous and serious offences a nd therefore is to be generall y t r eated as crime against the society and not against th e i n dividual alone. However, the High Court would not rest it s d e cision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 I.P.C. i n the FIR or the charge is fram e d under this provision. It woul d b e open to the High Court to examine as to whethe r i n corporation of Section 307 I.P . C. is there for the sake of it o r t h e prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which i f p r oved, would lead to provi n g the charge under Sectio n 3 0 7I.P.C. For this purpose, it wo u ld be open to the High Court t o g o by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury i s

¶27

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶28

CRM-M-16965-2026

¶29

4

¶30

i n flicted on the vital/delegate p arts of the body, nature o f w eapons used etc. Medical repo r t in respect of injuries suffere d b y the victim can generally be th e guiding factor. On the basis o f t h is prima facie analysis, the H igh Court can examine as t o w hether there is a strong possibi l ity of conviction or the chance s o f conviction are remote and b l eak. In the former case it ca n r e fuse to accept the settlem e nt and quash the crimina l p r oceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible fo r t h e High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence base d o n complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, th e C ourt can also be swayed by the f act that the settlement betwee n t h e parties is going to result in harmony between them whic h m ay improve their future relation s hip. ( V II) While deciding whether to e xercise its power under sectio n 4 8 2 of the Code or not, timings o f settlement play a crucial role. T hose cases where the settlemen t is arrived at immediately afte r t h e alleged commission of offen c e and the matter is still unde r i n vestigation, the High Court m ay be liberal in accepting th e s e ttlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It i s b e cause of the reason that at th i s stage the investigation is stil l o n and even the charge sheet ha s not been filed. Likewise, thos e c a ses where the charge is frame d but the evidence is yet to star t o r the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can sho w b e nevolence in exercising its po w ers favourably, but after prim a f a cie assessment of the circumst a nces/material mentioned above. O n the other hand, where the p rosecution evidence is almos t c o mplete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is a t t h e stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrai n f r om exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as i n s u ch cases the trial court woul d be in a position to decide th e c a se finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether th e o f fence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed or not. Similarly, i n those cases where the convic t ion is already recorded by th e t r ial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before th e

¶31

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶32

CRM-M-16965-2026

¶33

5

¶34

H igh Court, mere compromise b e tween the parties would not b e a ground to accept the same res u lting in acquittal of the offende r w ho has already been convicted b y the trial court. Here charge i s p r oved under Section 307 I.P . C. and conviction is alread y r e corded of a heinous crime an d , therefore, there is no questio n o f sparing a convict found guilty o f such a crime.”

¶35

W hile considering the issue rega r ding quashing of the FIR unde r Section 109 o f BNS, 2023 (Section 307 of erstwhile IPC) on the basis o f compromise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court h eld in the matter of “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan; 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 as follows:-

¶36

“13. Considering the law on the p oint and the other decisions o f t h is Court on the point, referre d to hereinabove, it is observe d a n d held as under: i) that the power conferred un d er section 482 of the Code t o q u ash the criminal proceedin g s for the non-compoundabl e o f fences under Section 320 of th e Code can be exercised havin g o v erwhelmingly and predom i nantly the civil character, p a rticularly those arising out o f commercial transactions o r a r ising out of matrimonial rela t ionship or family disputes an d w hen the parties have resolv e d the entire dispute amongs t t h emselves; ii ) such power is not to be exerc is ed in those prosecutions whic h i n volved heinous and serious o f fences of mental depravity o r o f fences like murder, rape, dac o ity, etc. Such offences are no t p r ivate in nature and have a seri o us impact on society; iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offence s u n der the special statutes like P revention of Corruption Act o r t h e offences committed by publi c servants while working in tha t c a pacity are not to be quas h ed merely on the basis o f c o mpromise between the victim a n d the offender; i v ) offences under section 307 I P C and the Arms Act etc. woul d

¶37

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

¶38

CRM-M-16965-2026

¶39

6

¶40

f a ll in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefor e a r e to be treated as crime against the society and not against th e i n dividual alone, and therefore, t he criminal proceedings for th e o f fence under section 307 IPC a nd/or the Arms Act etc. whic h h a ve a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed i n e x ercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, on the groun d t h at the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongs t t h emselves. However, the High C ourt would not rest its decisio n m erely because there is a mention of section 307 IPC in the FI R o r the charge is framed under th i s provision. It would be open t o t h e High Court to examine as to w hether incorporation of sectio n 3 0 7 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution ha s c o llected sufficient evidence, w h ich if proved, would lead t o f r aming the charge under sectio n 307 IPC. For this purpose, i t w ould be open to the High Cou r t to go by the nature of injur y s u stained, whether such injury i s inflicted on the vital/delegat e p a rts of the body, nature of wea p ons used etc. However, such a n e x ercise by the High Court wou l d be permissible only after th e e v idence is collected after inves t igation and the charge sheet i s filed/charge is framed and/or d u ring the trial. Such exercise i s n o t permissible when the matt e r is still under investigation. T herefore, the ultimate conclusi o n in paragraphs 29.6 and 29. 7 o f the decision of this Court i n the case of Narinder Sing h ( s upra) should be read harmoni o usly and to be read as a whol e a n d in the circumstances stated hereinabove; v ) while exercising the power u n der section 482 of the Code t o q u ash the criminal proceedings i n respect of non-compoundabl e o f fences, which are private in n a ture and do not have a seriou s i m part on society, on the ground that there is a s e ttlement/compromise between t he victim and the offender, th e H igh Court is required to co n sider the antecedents of th e a c cused; the conduct of the a ccused, namely, whether th e a c cused was absconding and w h y he was absconding, how h e h a d managed with the complain a nt to enter into a compromis e

¶41

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-16965-2026

7

e t c.”

K eeping in view the above state d principles of law, now I woul d advert to the fa cts of the present case and the p leadings of the parties.

¶46

I n the present case, a dispute ar o se between both the parties du e to some mis u nderstanding, which now stan d s resolved and the matter ha s been compro m ised with the intervention o f respectables. Apart from that , both the side s had not only buried their ha t chet and even, in view of th e compromise b etween the parties, there are m i nimal chances of the witnesse s coming forw a rd to depose before the Cou r t. In the light of the judicia l precedents re f erred to above, given the ter m s of compromise, placement o f parties, and o t her factors peculiar to the case, the contents of the compromis e deed and its o b jectives point towards its acce p tance. 10. H ence, this Court is of the considered opinion that th e continuation o f the proceedings in the presen t case would be an abuse of th e process of C o urt. As a consequence, the pre s ent petition is accepted and th e criminal proceedings arising out of

¶47

, are hereby ordered to be qua s hed. 11. P ending miscellaneous applicati o n(s), if any, stand(s) dispose d of, accordingl y .

¶48

(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)

¶49

25.05.2026 Gurpreet

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/ N o ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶52

GURPREET 2026.05.27 19:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

Sachin Alias Tower Alias Sachin Goyal and Others v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Alias Tower Alias Sachin Goyal 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

Jatinder Pal Alias Gadho Alias Jatinder Vs State of Punjab

Shahrukh Vs State of Haryana

Pankaj Bawa @ Pankaj Vs State of Haryana

Sunita Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh @ Keepu Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab