Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shubham And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -1-
251 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.8279 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
Shubham and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate and
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Diya Sodhi, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. G. S. Sarao, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.89, dated 27.07.2023, under Sections 307/506/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari on the basis of compromise deed dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-3).
2. 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-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -2- 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 subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 12.02.2026 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 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewari has sent the report dated 07.03.2026 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the photocopies of joint statement of complainant/respondent No.2 and respondent No.3, namely, Ankit and Parveen and accused-petitioners, namely, Shubham and Rahul @ Kala, recorded on 06.03.2026. He has also annexed the photocopy of statement of SI Parmod Kumar recorded on 06.03.2026. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewari has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and is not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of IO, SI Parmod Kumar, there are only three accused in the present FIR, i.e. Shubham, Rahul and child-in-conflict with law (N) and child-in-conflict in law (N) has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board vide judgment dated 26.02.2025. It has further been mentioned that accused-Shubham has never been declared as RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -3- proclaimed offender/person in any criminal case and one more case was registered against him bearing FIR No.51/2018, registered at Police Station Jatusana, however in the same, he has been acquitted. It has further been mentioned that 09 other cases have been registered against the accused-Rahul and in one case bearing FIR No.255/2018, under Sections 148, 149, 386, 452, 506 IPC, Section 3 of SC/ST Act and Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, he has been declared as proclaimed offender. Except these cases, no other case is pending against both the accused, namely, Shubham and Rahul @ Kala.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewari.
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 prescribes 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; RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -4- 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 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, RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -5- 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."
9. This court notes that the petitioner is also charged under section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which is an offence arising out of a special statute. The mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -6- would not refrain this Court, from exercising its respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. and proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise.
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 'Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 AIR (SC) 5228' has held as under:-
"16. .....where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."
11. Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 307 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.
12. 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 petitioner 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. RITTU 2026.04.07 17:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.8279 of 2026 -7-
13. 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.89, dated 27.07.2023, under Sections 307/506/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Jatusana, District Rewari along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise deed dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-3). Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.
14. Petition stands allowed.
06.04.2026 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
RITTU
2026.04.07 17:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document