Beer Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 3774 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Beer Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 April, 2026

           CRM-M-70256-2025 (O&M)



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

           271                                              CRM-M-70256-2025 (O&M)
                                                            Date of Decision :24.04.2026

            BEER KUMAR

                                                                             ......PETITIONER
                                                   Versus

           STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

                                                                           ...... RESPONDENTS

           CORAM:                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

            Present :           Mr. S.S. Jattan, Advocate
                                for the petitioner.

                                Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.

                                Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate
                                for respondent No.2.

                                      ****


           SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed

for quashing of FIR No.56 dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Sections 146, 196, 39, 192(1) of the Motor Vehicle

Act 1988 added later on], Police Station Naggal, District Ambala (Annexure P-

1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The

quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise between the

parties, dated 20.09.2025 (Annexures P-2).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been

perused carefully.

3. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated

12.01.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for

CRM-M-70256-2025 (O&M)

recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala dated 05.02.2026 has been received. A

perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons

have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled between

them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is

quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine,

without any undue influence and coercion.

5. As far as the offence, allegedly committed by the petitioner, is

concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under

Section 279 of IPC for which the petitioner has been prosecuted, is non-

compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are

analysed in the backdrop of relevant principles of law, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioners;

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioner does not have a serious impact on the society; and

v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means,

CRM-M-70256-2025 (O&M)

viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full

Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,

2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has jurisdiction, by

virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C, to allow the compounding of non-compoundable

offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that

the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise

to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to

matrimonial disputes alone.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in

order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court,

inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in

which a compromise has been effected. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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

CRM-M-70256-2025 (O&M)

the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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."

8. In view of the afore-referred principles of law, and the report of

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, regarding amicable settlement

between the petitioner and respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of

FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the

interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no

useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to

secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve

to be quashed.

9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR

No.56 dated 18.03.2022, under Sections 279, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code,

1860 [Sections 146, 196, 39, 192(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 added later

on], Police Station Naggal, District Ambala (Annexure P-1), along with all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the

basis of compromise deed dated 20.09.2025 (Annexures P-2)

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed

of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 24.04.2026 vipin

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No