Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monu Alias Inder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 27 March, 2026
CRM-M-6421-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
246
CRM-M-6421-2026
MONU ALIAS INDER SINGH
....PETITIONER
V/s
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 27.03.2026
Date of Uploading: 27.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sanjay Khan, Advocate for
Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.172 dated 07.08.2025 under Sections 125, 125(b), 281 of BNS and Sections 181/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Amendment 2015) (Challan has been presented only Section 125 of BNS), registered at Police Station Badhra District Charkhi Dadri and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 and P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2 On 05.02.2026, the following order was passed:
"The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of FIR No.172 dated 07.08.2025 under Sections 125, 125(b), JATIN 2026.03.27 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6421-2026 2 281 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 181/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Amended 2015) (challan presented only under Section 125 BNS), registered at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 27.01.2026 (Annexures P-2 and P-3).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter and as such, the present FIR is liable to be quashed.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State and Mr. Rakesh Chahar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has endorsed the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has not denied the factum of compromise effected between the parties.
Adjourned to 27.03.2026.
In the meanwhile, both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate on 19.02.2026 for recording their statements, who shall record their respective statements with regard to the genuineness/correctness of the compromise and that the compromise is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It shall also be verified that besides the accused (petitioners) mentioned in the petition, there is no other accused in the FIR and the parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case. The Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate shall send his/her report through learned Sessions Judge concerned on or before the date fixed before this Court."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 25.03.2026 from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri, has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"I have the honour to submit that in aforesaid CRM, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 05.02.2026, has asked the court of undersigned to report qua the genuineness of the compromise effected between the parties. In compliance of aforesaid order, both the parties duly identified by their respective counsel and Investigating officer appeared before me and got recorded their statements. The desired report is submitted herein below:-JATIN 2026.03.27 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6421-2026 3
Compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily, without any pressure, threat or coercion and that is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. Further, there is no any other accused in the present FIR beside the accused Inder Singh and parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other case. The copies of the statements of parties and status report filed by IO are annexed herewith."
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 (Annexure P-2 and P-3).
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 JATIN 2026.03.27 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6421-2026 4 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.
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.JATIN 2026.03.27 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-6421-2026 5
(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.172 dated 07.08.2025 under Sections 125, 125(b), 281 of BNS and Sections 181/196 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (Amendment 2015) (Challan has been presented only Section 125 of BNS), registered at Police Station Badhra District Charkhi Dadri and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/affidavit dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-2 and P-
3), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
27.03.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
JATIN
2026.03.27 16:48
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document