Jagdish Chand And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25348-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Jagdish Chand and others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:
Mr. Aditya Partap, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J.(Oral)
No.119 dated 19.03.2024 under Sections 506, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal, Haryana and all the subsequent proceedings along with the challan in the said FIR, on the basis of compromise deed along with affidavits dated 05/08.04.2025 (Annexure P-2).
!
"
!# !
# ! !
#
$
%# & '& (
#
!
$
&
#
)
3.
This Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate was also directed to send its report.
4.
In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal has sent the report dated 03.10.2025 to this Court. With the report learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal has also annexed the photocopies of the joint statement of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, namely,Tinku (complainant), Kamal and Sushil Kumar; joint statements of petitioners namely, Jagdish Chand, Ashok Kumar, Balraj @ Bittu and Parkash Chand recorded on 18.09.2025; statement of HC Pawan recorded on 01.10.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine/correct and same is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties.
As per the statement of the IO, 15 persons namely Ashok Kumar, Pravesh Kumar, Parkash, Balraj @ Bittu, Pradeep, Jagdish, Sonu, Rajbir, Rahul, Shamsher, Gurdev, Baldev, Sahil, Sonu and Pawan @ Poni and 10-12 other unknown persons have been arrayed as accused in the above said FIR, however, challan has been presented qua accused Ashok Kumar, Jagdish Chand and Balraj @ Bittu. Supplementary challan has been filed qua accused Parkash Chand. The parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case. 5.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. 6.
A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 482 Cr.P.C. 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 320 Cr.P.C. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
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;
vs
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 vs
(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
vs , 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 Court. 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.
In other words, the 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."
* '
"
+ ,
)
"
$ #
!
#
)
#
) ,
-. $$ / Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 326 IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties. 11.
' #
$
)
# FIR No.119 dated 19.03.2024 under Sections 506, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Nissing, District Karnal, Haryana along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are
03.11.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned:
YES/NO Whether Reportable:
YES/NO