Raju and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.138 dated 17.04.2020 registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC {corresponding Sections 115(2), 118, 351(2) and 3(5) BNS} at Police Station Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1), along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-2).

On 15.05.2026, the following order was passed:

"This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of FIR No.138 dated 17.04.2020 registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC {corresponding Sections 115(2), 118, 351(2) and 3(5) BNS} at Police Station Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1), along with all the

P a g e | 2

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 07.05.2026 (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. Jaswinder Rao, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and has filed Power of Attorney, which is taken on record. He admits the factum of compromise entered into between the parties.

List on 17.07.2026.

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. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR;

II. Number of complainant/victim(s);

III. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same;

IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereof; OR His/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person;

IV. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication;

VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence;

VII. Any other aspect relevant to the present case."

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 22.05.2026 from Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kanina, has been received, which is taken on record. Relevant part of the said report reads thus:

"In view of the aforesaid, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the compromise appears to be genuine and has been reached voluntarily by the parties, without any pressure or undue influence, and they have made

P a g e | 3

their statements voluntarily and without threat, inducement, coercion or undue influence. Hence, the compromise is genuine and voluntary. "

4.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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 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.

P a g e | 4

(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.138 dated

17.04.2020 registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC {corresponding Sections 115(2), 118, 351(2) and 3(5) BNS} at Police Station

P a g e | 5

Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh (Annexure P-1), along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure P-2).

10.

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

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE

17.07.2026 Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Date of uploading: 18.07.2026 Raju and others ....PETITIONERS V/s State of Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jasvinder Rao, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. *****