Dr. Abhishek Rajput And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Dr. Abhishek Rajput And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-14846-2026                                1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                      304
                      CRM-M-14846-2026

                      DR. ABHISHEK RAJPUT AND OTHERS
                                                                                  ....PETITIONERS
                                                                V/s

                      STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

                                                                                  ....RESPONDENTS

                      Date of decision: 23.04.2026
                      Date of Uploading: 23.04.2026

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
                      Present:       Ms. R. Dahiya, Advocate for
                                     Mr. Gourav Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                     Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

                                     Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                               *****
                      SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.90 dated 05.05.2025 under Sections 406, 420 and Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Sector-14, District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

2. On 18.03.2026, the following order was passed:

"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 JATIN 2026.04.23 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14846-2026 2 judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M-48043-2023, titled Rakesh Das v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 12.11.2024. Notice of motion. On the strength of advance service of copy of petition; Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana causes appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 - State of Haryana. At this juncture, Ajay Gupta, Advocate causes appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. He ratifies the factum of compromise having been effected between the parties. The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 23.03.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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. 23.04.2026.

The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank details whereof reads thus:

Account No.65018692589;

IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;

Branch Code: 50306;

Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for hereinabove.

It is explicit that depositing of costs shall not create any kind of equities in favour of the petitioners."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 07.04.2026 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

"1. The number of accused arraigned in the instant complaint are seven accused namely Sandeep Chaudhary, Vaastav Chaudhary, Prashant Bhutani, Shubham Dahiya, Dr. Abhishek Rajput, Avanish Rai and Dr. Sidhant @ Siddhant Chaudhary, who has appeared before this Court and made statement regarding compromise. There is no any other accused other than the above mentioned accused persons.

2. There is only one complainant in the present FIR namely Ravi Kumar, who has appeared before this Court and made statement regarding compromise with the accused. There is no any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved parties other than the above mentioned complainant.

3. There is no accused absconding or has been declared a proclaimed person in this case.

4. The present case is at the stage of judicial custody of accused Sidhant Chaudhary and next date is fixed for 10.04.2026.

5. The undersigned being the Illaqua Magistrate is of the view that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and out of free will and volition of parties and it appear that parties are not under any kind of threat or coercion while suffering their respective statements with respect to compromise.

6. As per the report of IO as well as statement of accused Sandeep Chaudhary, Vaastav Chaudhary, Prashant Bhutani, Shubham Dahiya, Dr. Abhishek Rajput, Avanish Rai and Dr. Sidhant @ Siddhant Chaudhary, no other criminal case is pending against the accused.

7. The statement of Complainant-Krishan and accused-Sandeep Chaudhary, Vaastav Chaudhary, Prashant Bhutani, Shubham Dahiya, Dr. Abhishek Rajput, Avanish Rai and Dr. Sidhant @ Siddhant Chaudhary in original along with self-attested copies of their Aadhar Cards and the statement/report of the Investigating Officer ASI Shyam Lal no. 989/GGM, are being sent to the Hon'ble High Court for kind perusal. The photocopies of the statements so recorded and this report be retained on the case file for record purposes."

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he 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/affidavit (Annexure P-2). JATIN 2026.04.23 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14846-2026 4

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 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 JATIN 2026.04.23 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14846-2026 5 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 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.90 dated 05.05.2025 under Sections 406, 420 and Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC added later on, registered at Police Station Sector-14, District Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 10.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed.

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

                                                                         (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                                             JUDGE
                      23.04.2026
                      jatin
                                   Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
                                   Whether reportable:                       Yes/No




JATIN
2026.04.23 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document