Jagdish Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4703 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 3 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

CRM-M-25348-2025                  1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
299
                                              CRM-M-25348-2025 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 03.11.2025

Jagdish Chand and others                                  .....Petitioners


                                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                               .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:     Mr. Aditya Partap, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Ankit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

                                  ****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.119

dated 19.03.2024 under Sections 506, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Section

326 IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal,

Haryana and all the subsequent proceedings along with the challan in the said

FIR, on the basis of compromise deed along with affidavits dated

05/08.04.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. FIR in question was got registered 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 invoking the

inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings

would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the

FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be

1 of 5

quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 directed

the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their

statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was

also directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Karnal has sent the report dated 03.10.2025 to this Court. With the report

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal has also annexed the

photocopies of the joint statement of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, namely,Tinku

(complainant), Kamal and Sushil Kumar; joint statements of petitioners

namely, Jagdish Chand, Ashok Kumar, Balraj @ Bittu and Parkash Chand

recorded on 18.09.2025; statement of HC Pawan recorded on 01.10.2025. On

the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal has

concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is

genuine/correct and same is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and

is the result of free will of the parties. As per the statement of the IO, 15

persons namely Ashok Kumar, Pravesh Kumar, Parkash, Balraj @ Bittu,

Pradeep, Jagdish, Sonu, Rajbir, Rahul, Shamsher, Gurdev, Baldev, Sahil, Sonu

and Pawan @ Poni and 10-12 other unknown persons have been arrayed as

accused in the above said FIR, however, challan has been presented qua

accused Ashok Kumar, Jagdish Chand and Balraj @ Bittu. Supplementary

challan has been filed qua accused Parkash Chand. The parties are not

involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. 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 2 of 5

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is equally

relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of

the offences under the Indian Penal Code.

7. 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.

8. 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 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

3 of 5

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 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 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."

9. 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

4 of 5

into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an

abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the

petitioners 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.

10. Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 326

IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the

dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of

brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.

11. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,

FIR No.119 dated 19.03.2024 under Sections 506, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC

and Section 326 IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Nissing, District

Karnal, Haryana along with all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

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.

12. Petition stands allowed.

03.11.2025                                  (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
Rajeev (rvs)                                       JUDGE

               Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
               Whether Reportable:        YES/NO




                                  5 of 5