Ravi Kumar Bhalla v. State Of Haryana And Another

CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Ravi Kumar Bhalla ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner 





 

 


  

  
 ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)  !



"


# $

%&'
()
 *+*,*)
$
 

)*,-
&.




'


'

/
0 




# 
 $
$ 


"


 

1*)*+
2 3 
-4  5
 
 "





6

7

$
27 
4
6


6

60






 


%&'
 

)*,-
&.
6
$  !
6




 "



" 



"
 
&

$


 



(

8



$


. 




 




 

 
.'--+++9-* 9
 

,**)

6

 :

;(
&





 

)*,-

CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 2 

& 

. 
1(*
<&.=


   "

 

)*


. 

.
 
98) <..=
'$ $

# $

%&'
 

)*,- &.



6


%&'

"
# 
6
 




  
 
!



 "


-$
 

" 


 $$
$
6

 


)*,-
&.
 



 


" 



 
$$

&
 


0
 



$$
 $

 

!

6

 



" 





   
 

. 
 
 



  

6


6



 $$



 

 

&

 $

-
0



 



%&'
 

"
#  >
6
6


0 

  "






# 

%&'



6

%&'

 
$

 
 )*8

)(
&.

"
#  
% 

)* ..
 

 
6

$
  


6



3 
$


 
!





)*,
&.




3 

$

 
"


" 

  

$


"



6
  ?

"

 


$$
 


6 
"
 "


 

 

$


!
# $


 

)*,- &.



  
 

"
# 
  $





 




 $


 



$ 


 


8
&


 




 




 @
6
!

6 $
6

 "


  
 





 
-**



"
$
6 
6
$






6
 



6

 


 
"6
6
6




 

6

$


0

6




!
 
$ $

  

 "
 




6







6
 "



 
 

6
&




" "





"
 $

! 
 







 
 
 @
 "

 

'
!
0
 
!
@
 "
 

 



6

0 

 6
 "



 



 



 


 
 

" $



 


 

"


CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 3  
6
 $


6


 -  


 


6


6 


 
!
 






6
 



6


 



3 
! 


 







 @ 6$








6  $





"




 6




@
6




" 



$$A ) 
 



  

 


 



 

.'-- (8-*)
 

 *)

6



6
6
60$






 0 , Learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 affirm the factum of compromise.

+ 

 





$
 $

  ( !
. 
6
 $



 
 
 * *,*+







"


. B&#
$ 
 $


6
$


  8   



 
 

9*,*+

" 



C 
$

.
0 

 

 








"  




6






"
 "6





"





%&'

# 

#   !
 

"6


$ 
6 

 
  

&




 




  


 "



 





%&'

CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 4 1 !
% 
7


. 

 


 
 

!"#
**8
2)4
'.'
2.4
*+


$
. 

6

 

,1
..

6

   $

-   " 

# 

 
6

$
. 



6

 
6
# 



"






6

6
  

 



!
6

# $




 



9 @"




. 




$



 !"

  #
* 
2,4
'.'
2.4
+,)

"


 
  

 







"





. 


6

"

"

. 

# 

 $

6
 

"
 
!




+8




$
 
 :-
;+8
!


$


"
 

" 
 :

6


$
. 

# $



 $

%&'

 

3




  





6
$



 
   $


 

)*


. 
&
6


6 
 
6

 

"


 

"
3


6

$  
$

 

6
D>
24

 

 




24


"


 



. 
EEE---EEE
 * It would be apposite to refer to Ramgopal and Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834, where Hon'ble The Supreme Court after expounding the law on compromise quashing under Section- 320 Cr.P.C., and held thus:

"19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences `compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482

CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 5 Cr.P.C., 1973 or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society;

(ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any;

(iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

11.

The death of the complainant's son, had taken place on account of the electric shock at the workplace, for which the Owner-respondent No.2 had taken responsibility and paid the compensation for the loss. The FIR was registered against the petitioner on 05.04.2023 and whereafter, when the complainant realised that the petitioner was not at fault in any manner, agreed to make a statement in the Court in this regard and thus, a compromise was arrived at between them.

12.

In the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2003 (4) SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable." ) &
6


-

$ $

 



CRM-M-17631-2025 (O&M) 6 
. 
$ $
"

"6



 

. 
 

# $

%&'
6


#  

 


"6









"
 

" 
 



 

!

 

 
6 
"

  $

 $


 

 

 






 $






"
#  
, ' 




6

%&'
()
 *+*,*)
$
 

)*,-
&.




'


'

/
0 




# 
 $
$ 

# 
# 




"


 
 1*)*+.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 08.09.2025 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No