Manjeet @ Johri & Others vs State Of Haryana & Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 4011 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjeet @ Johri & Others vs State Of Haryana & Another on 30 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-12616-2026                              1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                              CHANDIGARH
                      283
                      CRM-M-12616-2026

                      MANJEET @ JOHRI & OTHERS
                                                                               ....PETITIONERS
                                                              V/s

                      STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
                                                                               ....RESPONDENTS

                      Date of decision: 30.04.2026
                      Date of Uploading: 30.04.2026

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
                      Present:     Mr. Vikram Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

                                   Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

                                   Mr. Abhishek Chhoker, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                             *****
                      SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL

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

2023 for quashing of FIR No.152 dated 28.03.2024 under Sections 379-B

and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar District Bhiwani,

and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of

compromise dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been

effected between the parties.

2. On 24.03.2026, the following order was passed:

"The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of compromise in the following manner:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate concerned on 30.03.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either

record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.

(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion. The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer, concerned:

(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in this petition?

(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?

The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e. 30.04.2026."

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 03.04.2026 from

District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has been received, which is taken on

record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

"1. Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners, arrayed in this petition? As per report submitted by IO ASI Deepak Kumar No.2/Bwn, there are three persons arrayed as accused, out of them, two accused namely Manjeet alias Johri son of Ran Singh, resident of Bijan Pana, Bapora, Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani and Neeraj alias Saurav son of Sunil, resident of village, Bapora, Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani are facing trial before this court separately while one child-in-conflict with law "M", is facing separate trial before this court, in the dispute/FIR.

2. Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?

As per report submitted by IO ASI Deepak Kumar No.2/Bwn, all the accused, child in conflict with law and

complainant/victim have been arrayed as parties in the quashing petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court.

3. Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?

As per report submitted by IO ASI Deepak Kumar No.2/Bwn, none of the accused or CCL has been declared as "proclaimed Offender"in this case till that date or any such proceedings have been initiated or pending against them in any other case."

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties

having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and

all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case

the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully

gone through the records of the case.

7. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt

with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to

quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh

vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh &

others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and

Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R.

(Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of

September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid

decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.

(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings

recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.

(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same

as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the

above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023 as well.

8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise

jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :-

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

(iii) The parties have compromised.

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.152 dated 28.03.2024

under Sections 379-B and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhiwani Sadar

District Bhiwani, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of compromise dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                                                           (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                                               JUDGE
                      30.04.2026
                      jatin
                                       Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No
                                       Whether reportable:                     Yes/No