Friday, 12, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunil Kumar Vishawakarma vs State Of Haryana And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 3845 P&H

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3845 P&H
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunil Kumar Vishawakarma vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH
              281
                                                                   CRM-M-14032-2026 (O&M)
                                                                   Date of decision: 27.04.2026
              Sunil Kumar Vishawakarma
                                                                                      ....Petitioner
                                                  Versus
              State of Haryana and Another
                                                                                    ...Respondents

              CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                                *****
              Present : Mr. Manoj K. Panchal, Advocate for the petitioner

                               Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG Haryana

                     Mr. Vrishketu, Advocate for respondent No.2
                                            *****
              AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.147,

dated 05.04.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC (419, 467, 468, 471,

188, 120-B IPC added subsequently), (316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3),

340(2), 223 & 61(2) BNS), at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula,

and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the

compromise dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were

two accused, however, the challan has been presented only against him.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case

file.

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

16.03.2026, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate

for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 15.04.2026 has been

received from the learned Judical Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula. A perusal of

the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been

CRM-M-14032-2026 (O&M) -2-

recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled

between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed.

The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence

and coercion. It is stated in the report that there is only one accused. Neither he

has been declared as proclaimed offender nor involved in any other FIR.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs.

State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that High Court has

power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-

compoundable offence and quash the prosecution 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. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of

Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had 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. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said

judgment reads thus:-

"57. 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. XXX---XXX"

8. In view of the afore-referred judgments, perusing the report of the

CRM-M-14032-2026 (O&M) -2-

trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner and the

complainant, this Court finds that quashing the 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 allowed and FIR No.147, dated

05.04.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420 IPC (419, 467, 468, 471, 188,

120-B IPC added subsequently), (316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2),

223 & 61(2) BNS), at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula, and all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner

on the basis of the compromise dated 28.10.2025.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 27.04.2026 M.Kamra

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter