[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahab Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 April, 2026
CRM-M-40530-2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
267 CRM-M-40530-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision :24.04.2026
SAHAB SINGH AND ANOTHER
......PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Shivam Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Rana, Advocate for
Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate
for respondents No.2.
****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, has been filed
for quashing of FIR No.412 dated 12.10.2023, under Sections 308, 323, 325,
34, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Madhuban, District
Karnal (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 23.06.2025 (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
19.01.2026, had directed the parties to appear before the learned trial Court for
CRM-M-40530-2025 (O&M)
recording of their statements, with regard to the compromise.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned
Additional Distrait & Sessions Judge-1, Karnal dated 07.03.2026 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 petitioners, is
concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offences punishable under
Section 308 of IPC for which the petitioners have 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 petitioners do 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-40530-2025 (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-40530-2025 (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 Additional Distrait & Sessions Judge-1, Karnal, regarding amicable
settlement between the petitioners 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.412 dated 12.10.2023, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 34, 341 and 506 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal (Annexure
P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is
hereby quashed on the basis of compromise deed dated 23.06.2025 (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
