Akshay Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4759 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Akshay Sharma And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 4 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

CRM-M-52404-2025                1

291
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-52404-2025
                                         Date of decision: 04.11.2025

AKSHAY SHARMA AND ANOTHER                            ....Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER                         ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Ms. Diya Sodhi, Senior, DAG, Haryana.

            Mr. Simranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                  ****

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR

No.99, dated 16.03.2024, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467 and 468 of

of IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad

along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise dated 20.08.2025 (Annexure P-6).

2. FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and

the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables,

finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se

dispute, which is apparent from the Compromise/order, annexed as

Annexure P-6. 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 along with all subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 directed the parties to

appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their 1 of 5

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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Faridabad has sent the report dated 28.10.2025 to this Court. With the

report, he has annexed the photocopy of statement of

complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Parveen Sharma and photocopy of

statement of accused-petitioners, namely, Akashy Sharma and Richa

Sharma recorded on 08.10.2025. He has also annexed the photocopy of

statement of Investigating Officer ASI Jagdeep Kumar recorded on

17.10.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Faridabad has concluded in the report that the compromise effected

between the parties is genuine, valid, voluntary and without any coercion

or undue influence. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement

of ASI Jagdeep Kumar, except the accused-petitioners, no other persons

arrayed in the case. It has further been mentioned that none of the accused

has been declared proclaimed offender.

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

and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.

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 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the

procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita.

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 2 of 5

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 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 3 of 5

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 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 case

would be securing the ends of justice, 4 of 5 which is primarily the object of the

legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

10. 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.99, dated 16.03.2024, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467 and

468 of of IPC, registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District

Faridabad along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are

hereby quashed. 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.

11. Petition stands allowed.

04.11.2025                                            (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
monika                                                    JUDGE



             1. Whether speaking/ reasoned        :   Yes /No
             2. Whether reportable                :   Yes /No




                                             5 of 5