[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Mishra And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 December, 2025
CRM-M-61375-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
304
CRM-M-61375-2025
SUNIL MISHRA AND OTHERS
....PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 02.12.2025
Date of Uploading:02.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Kannan Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vijender Rana, Advocate for
Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.248 dated 22.03.2023 under Sections
406/420/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karnal Sadar, District
Karnal, Haryana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise Deed-cum-Settlement Agreement dated 02.08.2023
(Annexure P-3) and the amended settlement agreement dated 04.09.2023
(Annexure P-4), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2. On 03.11.2025, 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
1 of 6
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
this Court passed in 'Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana and
another', Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC;147654-DB.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Addl.AG, Haryana has put
in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Haryana
and accepts notice.
Mr. Nishant Raj, Advocate has filed memorandum of
appearance for respondent No.2. The same be taken on record.
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 10.11.2025 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:
2 of 6
(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. 02.12.2025.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹1,50,000/- 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."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 29.11.2025 from
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has been received, which is
taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"a) As per statement of IO, Sunil Mishra, Rakesh, Gaurav
Mittal, Rajender Mittal, Radha Mittal and Harish Kumar are
accused and Sumit Dabbas is complainant and they have filed
petition for quashing of FIR.
b) As per the statement of IO, there is no other complainant
other then respondent no.2.
c) Undersigned recorded statement of the parties with regard to
the compromise and on the basis of the statements of the
parties, as referred above, undersigned is of the view that that
statements of the parties are bonafide and not result of any
pressure or coercion etc. in any manner;
d) As per statement of IO, none of the accused has been
declared Proclaimed Offender in this case."
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.
3 of 6
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise Deed-cum-Settlement
Agreement dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) and the amended settlement
agreement dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure P-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
4 of 6
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
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 :-
5 of 6
(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.248 dated 22.03.2023
under Sections 406/420/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Karnal Sadar,
District Karnal, Haryana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on
the basis of compromise Deed-cum-Settlement Agreement dated 02.08.2023
(Annexure P-3) and the amended settlement agreement dated 04.09.2023
(Annexure P-4), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
02.12.2025
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
