Amarjit Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amarjit Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-3844-2026                              1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                      271
                      CRM-M-3844-2026

                      AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS
                                                                             ....PETITIONERS
                                                             V/s

                      STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                                                             ....RESPONDENTS

                      Date of decision: 02.04.2026
                      Date of Uploading: 02.04.2026

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
                      Present:     Mr. Sandeep Singh Jattan, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                   Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

                                   Ms. Sundeep Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

                                                           *****
                      SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.108 dated 24.03.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 188 of IPC and Sections 324 and 506 of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

2. On 23.01.2026, the following order was passed:

"This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.108, dated 24.03.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 188 and Sections 324, 506 (added later on) of the IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala alongwith all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State.

Ms. Varsha Choudhary, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and has filed power of attorney, which is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise entered into between the parties.

List on 09.03.2026.

In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on 11.02.2026, for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise.

The trial Court is directed to submit a report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following information:-

(I) Number of persons arrayed as accused and victim in the FIR;

(ii) Whether any accused is declared as proclaimed offender? (iii) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence?

(iv) Whether the accused persons are involved in any other FIR or not?

(v) Whether compromise is complete or partial?

(vi) Whether offence has been enhanced after registration of the FIR?

For awaiting report, to come up on 09.03.2026."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 18.02.2026 from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

"1. In the FIR seven persons namely Amarjit Singh, Kanwar Jit Singh, Rishi Pal, Sahab Singh, Rajbir Singh, Rahul and Pardeep Singh are arrayed as accused persons. Further, there is one victim namely Ram Chander in the present FIR. Final report/challan has been filed only against six accused persons namely Amarjit Singh, Kanwar Jit Singh, Rishi Pal, Sahab Singh, Rajbir Singh and Rahul. During investigation no involvement of Pardeep Singh was found in the present case and accused Pardeep Singh was not chargesheeted in the present FIR/case.

2. None of the accused persons have been declared as proclaimed offender.

3. The compromise arrived between both the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion or undue influence.

4. As per the statement of IO, FIR No.FIR no.271 dated 28.09.2020 u/s 323, 506 IPC PS Mullana and FIR No. 88 dated 09.05.2006 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC, PS Sadar Nahan (HP) were registered against the accused Kanwarjeet Singh and in the both FIR/Cases accused was acquitted. Further, FIR no. 271 dated 28.09.2020 u/s 323, 506 IPC PS Mullana was registered against accused Rishipal in that case he was acquitted.

Further, FIR No.88 dated 09.05.2006 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC, PS Sadar Nahan (HP) was registered against the accused Sahab Singh and in that case he was acquitted.

5. Compromise arrived between the both the parties is complete and they all are party to the compromise.

6. As per the statement of IO, initially FIR has been registered u/s 148, 149, 188, 323, 325, 427 of IPC however during investigation section 324 of IPC has been added and challan u/s 148, 149, 188, 323, 324,325, 427 of IPC has been filed."

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that she has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3).

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

7. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :

(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.

(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings JATIN 2026.04.02 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3844-2026 4 recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(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.

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 JATIN 2026.04.02 17:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-3844-2026 5 above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.

8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :-

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.108 dated 24.03.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 188 of IPC and Sections 324 and 506 of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-3), are, hereby, quashed.

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

                                                                           (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                                               JUDGE
                      02.04.2026
                      jatin
                                       Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No
                                       Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




JATIN
2026.04.02 17:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document