Petition to quash FIR for offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The trial court reported the compromise was genuine and voluntary; complainant and State raised no objection. The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-3534-2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
352 CRM-M-3534-2026
NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS
.... PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
.... RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Date of Uploading: 09.07.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sher Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 (Through VC).
SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL
“The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all concerned are parties to the present petition in terms of the dicta of the Division Bench judgment of
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3534-2026
2
this Court passed in ‘Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana and another’, Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC;147654-DB.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:
(i) The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 24.03.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.
(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition?
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition? (iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 27.04.2026.
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3534-2026
3
The question, as regards, the maintainability as also the desirability of the petition in hand, is kept open.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 03.04.2026 from
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has been received, which is taken on
record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
“As per directions of Hon'ble High Court vide Order dated 19.03.2026, on 01.04.2026 complainant Gulshan Kumar appeared before the Court and got recorded his statement to the effect that he is the only aggrieved person/complainant in the present case. He got the above said FIR registered against accused Naresh Kumar, Ganesh and Shiva Kumar. Now with the intervention of respectable of the society and relatives, the dispute between them and accused has been compromised This compromise is complete, genuine, voluntary and without any coercom or undue miluenc Now, they have no grudge against the above named accused. They have re objection, if the present FIR is quashed as per the above said compromise.
Thereafter, accused Naresh Kumar. Ganesh and Shiva Kumar got their joint statement recorded, wherein they stated that they have been arrayed as accused in FIR No.219 Dated 17.07.2025 registered under Sections: 406, 420 and 506 of IPC Police Station: Ambala City, Ambala. They have compromised the matter with the complainant Gulshan Kumar voluntarily and without any pressure or undue influence from any side. They are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise. They have never been declared as proclaimed persons. They are giving this statement voluntarily and on basis of free will. The compromise is complete, genuine. No other FIR is pending against them.
Thereafter, ASI Baljeet Singh, No. 33/Ambala, Police Station Arthik Aprad Shakha, Ambala, Investigating Officer got his statement recorded, wherein he stated that there are three persons namely Naresh Kumar, Ganesh and Shiva Kumar, who have been arrayed as accused in the present FIR, who have come present before the Court and have made joint statement. The accused are not absconding/proclaimed person in the present case. The name of the complainant/aggrieved are Gulshan Kumar, who has come present before the court and has made statement in support of the compromise. Only the FIR in the present case has been sent to the court. As per record, no other FIR/Case is pending against the accused. Offence has not been enhanced after registration of FIR.
As per statement of Investigating Officer ASI Baljeet Singh there are three persons namely Naresh Kumar, Ganesh and Shiva Kumar, who have been arrayed as accused in the present FIR. who have come present before the Court and have made
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3534-2026
4
joint statement. The accused are not absconding/proclaimed person in the present case. The name of the complainant/aggrieved are Gulshan Kumar, who has come present before the court and has made statement in support of the compromise. Only the FIR in the present case has been sent to the court. As per record, no other FIR/Case is pending against the accused. As per the statements of parties, the compromise is complete, genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. The Report is sent to your goodself.”
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3534-2026
5
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-3534-2026
6
The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
09.07.2026 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN 2026.07.09 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the parties under Section 528 BNSS.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶7
2012(10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & anotherRelied on¶7
2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052
Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶7
2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322
Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana and anotherReferred
2024:PHHC;147654-DB
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naresh Kumar and others
State of Haryana
Gulshan Kumar (respondent No.2)
Sumeet Goel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
