[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Setiya And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 6 March, 2026
CRM-M-5254-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
263
CRM-M-5254-2026 (O&M)
SATPAL SETIYA AND OTHERS
....PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 06.03.2026
Date of Uploading: 06.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhinav Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.628 dated 19.08.2025 under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station
Sadar Karnal, District Karnal and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 23.09.2025/26.01.2026
(Annexure P-4 and P-6), which is stated to have been effected between the
parties.
2. On 30.01.2026, the following order was passed:
"This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR
No.628 dated 19.08.2025 under Sections 316(2) 318(4), 61 (2), 338, 336
(3) and 340 (2) of BNS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal,
District Karnal with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the
1 of 5
basis of compromise dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) and affidavit dated
26.01.2026.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G, Haryana
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gautam Kumar,
Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and has
filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He admits the factum of
compromise entered into between the parties.
List on 10.02.2026.
In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa
Magistrate/trial Court on 31.01.2026, for recording of their statements
with regard to the compromise. The trial Court is directed to submit a
report on or before the next date of hearing containing the following
information:-
(i) Number of persons arrayed as accused and victim in the FIR;
(ii) Whether any accused is declared as proclaimed offender?
(iii) Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any
coercion or undue influence?
(iv) Whether the accused persons are involved in any other FIR or not?
(v) Whether compromise is complete or partial?"
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 05.02.2026 from
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal has been received, which is
taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"a) As per statement of IO, present FIR has been registered against
accused persons namely Satpal Setia, Abhishek Setia and Satpal Rinku
and there is no other accused in the present FIR.
b) As per the statement of IO, challan in the present FIR has been
submitted before the ld. trial Court.
c) As per statement of IO, accused persons have not been declared
Proclaimed offender.
d) As per statement of IO, there is no other complainant/victim other then
Jaspreet Maan in the present FIR.
e) As per statement of IO, following FIRs have been registered against
accused Abhishek Setia in different police station:-
i) FIR No. 531/2025, P.S. Sadar, Karnal.
ii) FIR No. 167/2025, P.S. Babain, Kurukshetra.
iii) FIR No. 499/2025, P.S. Sector-32/33, Karnal.
iv) FIR No. 528/2025, P.S. Sector-32/33, Karnal.
v) FIR No. 74/2025, P.S. Shahzadpur, Ambala.
vi) FIR No. 142/2025, P.S. Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.
vii) FIR No. 765/2016, P.S.Thanesar, Kurukshetra.
viii) FIR No. 105/2019, P.S. Civil Lines, Karnal.
ix) FIR No. 190/2015, P.S. City Pehowa, KUK.
x) FIR No. 191/2015, P.S. City Pehowa, KUK.
xi) FIR No. 769/2025, P.S. Sadar, Karnal.
f) As per statement of IO, one more FIR has been registered against
accused Satpal Rinku:-
FIR No. 89/2019, P.S. Julka, Patiala, Punjab
g) Undersigned recorded statement of the parties with regard to the
compromise and on the basis of the statements of the parties and statement
of IO, as referred above, undersigned is of the view that the compromise is
2 of 5
genuine and not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation, rather is the
result of free will of the parties;
h) Undersigned recorded statement of the parties with regard to the
compromise and on the basis of the statements of the parties and statement
of IO, as referred above, undersigned is of the view that compromise is
complete in nature."
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/affidavit (Annexure P-3 and
P-4).
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
3 of 5
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
4 of 5
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.628 dated 19.08.2025
under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS, registered at
Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated
23.09.2025/26.01.2026 (Annexure P-4 and P-6), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
