Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ghanshyam Vidhwani And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004217
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(307)
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 14.01.2025
Ghanshyam Vidhwani and others
................Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and another
.................Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
Mr. Jagdeep Rana, Advocate for respondent No. 2
...
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,
praying for quashing of FIR No.0156 dated 19.04.2024, for offence under
Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station
Sivaji Nagar, Gurugram Haryana, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure
P-2).
2. FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the
investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of
respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their
inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as
Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying
that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004217
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 - 2-
abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of
justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 04.10.2024 directed the parties to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their
statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned JMIC, Gurugram, has sent
report dated 19.11.2024. With the report, he has annexed original
statements of respondent No.2 Aman Mehndiratta- complainant and
statements of petitioners No. 1 to 4, namely, Pankaj Kumar Kela, Narender
Jonwal, Ghanshyam Vidhwani and Tirath Ram Devangan - accused, and
also statement of SI Gajraj Singh, recorded on 14.11.2024. On the basis of
statements, learned JMIC, Gurugram has concluded in its report that the
compromise between the parties is genuine and is not result of any pressure
or coercion in any manner. It is further mentioned in the report that there are
four accused in the present FIR namely, Ghanshyam Vidhwani, Pankaj
Kumar Kela, Tirath Ram Devangan and Narender Jonwal. None of the
accused was declared proclaimed offender in the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the
FIR lodged against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition
is liable to be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004217
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 - 3-
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned JMIC, Gurugram.
8. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 BNSS would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to
give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 BNSS is
equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
9. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and
the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases
675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with
the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
10. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with
the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of
the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para
61 of the judgment reads as under:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004217
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 - 4-
criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what
cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the
offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly
civil flavour stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private
or personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and
the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put
the accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation
of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse
of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004217
CRM-M- 50230 of 2024 - 5-
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
11. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora
of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have
entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then
continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the
Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by
quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily
the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
12. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in
hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial
precedents and hence, 0156 dated 19.04.2024, for offence under Sections
120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Sivaji
Nagar, Gurugram Haryana, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of
compromise dated 28.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).
13. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the
Court below. Petition stands allowed.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
14.01.2025 JUDGE
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
5 of 5
