Harish Arora And Other v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.07.2025 Harish Arora and others ..... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***

Present:

Mr. Sahil Loura, Advocate for Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amrik Narwal, D.A.G., Haryana.

Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5.

*** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.333, dated 01.05.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). Further prayer has been made for staying the proceedings before the learned trial Court during the pendency of the present petition.

-22.

FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 3.

This Court vide order dated 20.11.2024/11.03.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its report. 4.

In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has sent the report dated 28.04.2025 to this Court. With the report, she has annexed the original joint statement of complainant/respondent No.2 and respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Balinder Singh, Sunita, Jaib Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and original joint statement of the accused-petitioners, namely, Harish Arora, Rajeev Arora and Manmeet Arora @ Manjeet Arora recorded on 25.03.2025. She has also annexed the original statement of SI Rajinder Singh recorded on 17.04.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

-3Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and is not the result of fraud or misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of SI Rajinder Singh, the petitioners are the only accused in the present FIR and no other person is involved in the offence in question. It has further been mentioned that as per the Statement of Investigating Officer, the accused, complainant and prosecution witnesses have not been declared as proclaimed offender in any case. It has further been mentioned that the complainants are not involved in any other case, however the accused-petitioners were involved in 02 more cases bearing FIR No.923, dated 12.11.2022, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B of IPC and FIR No.391 dated 16.05.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 506 IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Classcum-Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

6.

A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which

-4prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

7.

Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8.

Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any

-5Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society.

Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.

In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim.

-6the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9.

Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 10.

As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.333, dated 01.05.2023, under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120B of IPC and Sections 10, 24 of Immigration Act, registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by

-7the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.

11.

Petition stands allowed.

14.07.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) rittu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No