Twinkle Arora vs State Of Haryana And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 2327 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Twinkle Arora vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2026

CRM-M-4850-2026                                   1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH
329
CRM-M-4850-2026

TWINKLE ARORA
                                                         ....PETITIONER
                                            V/s

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
                                                         ....RESPONDENTS

Date of decision: 12.03.2026
Date of Uploading: 12.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:       Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.

               Mr. Ankur Jain, 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.49 dated 23.02.2020 under Sections 379, 420

of IPC (Section of 201 of IPC and 66-C of IT added later on) Act, registered

at Police Station DLF Phase-1, District Gurugram and all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated

16.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between

the parties.

2 On 29.01.2026, the following order was passed:

"This is a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.49, dated 23.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 379 and 420 of IPC (Section 201 IPC and Section 66-C of IT added later on), registered at Police Station DLF, Phase-1, District Gurugram, alongwith all subsequent

1 of 5

proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) 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. Gaurav Verma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents 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 20.02.2026.

In the meantime, the parties are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court within a period of two weeks from today, 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?

(vi) Whether offence has been enhanced after registration of the FIR?"

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 19.02.2026 from

Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurugram has been received, which is taken

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

"(i) It is submitted that as per the statement of IO/ASI Ashok Kumar No. 530/GGM, P.S. DLF Phase-1, Gurugram, there is only one person namely Twinkle Arora arrayed as accused in the present case. There is only one victim namely Abhishek Kumar Sinha, in the present case.

(ii) It is submitted that as per the statement of IO/ASI Ashok Kumar No. 530/GGM, P.S. DLF Phase-1, Gurugram, Twinkle Arora has never been declared as proclaimed offender in the present case.

(iii) It is further submitted that as per the statements of the parties, all the affected parties entered into the compromise.

After careful perusal of the statements given on solemn affirmation by the complainant as well that of accused, the undersigned is convinced that the abovesaid persons have made their statements voluntarily, without any pressure, influence or

2 of 5

coercion, threat or inducement. The compromise entered into between the parties is genuine.

(iv) It is submitted that as per the statement of IO/ASI Ashok Kumar No. 530/GGM, P.S. DLF Phase-1, Gurugram, present accused Twinkle Arora is involved in 6 other FIRs bearing FIR No. 4 dated 06.01.2020 under Section 379, 420 IPC, P.S. Sector-65, Gurugram, FIR No. 22 dated 09.02.2020 under Section 379, 420, 201 IPC, P.S. Sector-65, Gurugram, FIR No. 260 dated 03.10.2019 under Section 380, 419, 120-B IPC, P.S. Sector-65, Gurugram, FIR No. 43 dated 30.01.2020 under Section 379, 420, 201 IPC, P.S. Palam Vihar, Gurugram, FIR No. 136 dated 20.06.2020 under Section 379, 419, 420 IPC, P.S. BTPT, Faridabad & FIR No. 311/2019 under Section 379, 420 IPC, P.S. Sector-65, Gurugram.

(v) It is submitted that as per the statement of parties, the compromise is complete.

(vi) It is submitted that in the present case, initially FIR was registered under Section 379, 420 IPC but later on Section 420 IPC was deleted and Section 201 IPC and Section 66C of IT Act were added."

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of

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

FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed.

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

FIR is quashed based upon the compromise/affidavit (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

3 of 5

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.

4 of 5

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.49 dated

23.02.2020 under Sections 379, 420 of IPC (Section of 201 of IPC and 66-C

of IT added later on) Act, registered at Police Station DLF Phase-1, District

Gurugram and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis

of compromise/affidavit dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby,

quashed.

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

                                                         (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                             JUDGE
12.03.2026
jatin
                Whether speaking/reasoned:                   Yes/No
                Whether reportable:                          Yes/No




                                    5 of 5