The High Court held that even in grave, non-compoundable offences such as attempt to murder (Section 109(1) BNS, akin to Section 307 IPC) and Arms Act charges, inherent powers may be exercised to quash proceedings on settlement if material witnesses turn hostile and the possibility of conviction is virtually nullified. This judgment follows and applies the ratio in Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan, and recent Supreme Court precedents, reaffirming guidelines for such quashing, with clear limits and fact-specific inquiry. The decision provides binding authority within Punjab & Haryana and persuasive authority elsewhere for similar factual matrices.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/34547/2025 of ANKUSH MANOCHA AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010973622025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench (MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab & Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Follows and applies Supreme Court precedents (Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan, Naushey Ali); interprets—not overrules—existing law. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Inherent powers, quashing; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Arms Act, 1959 |
| Questions of Law | Can criminal proceedings for serious, non-compoundable offences like attempt to murder and Arms Act be quashed under Section 528 BNSS if a genuine compromise is reached and main prosecution witnesses turn hostile? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings for non-compoundable and grave offences if material witnesses, particularly the complainant/injured, unequivocally resile from their prior statements and do not implicate the accused. The factual scenario must establish that no material evidence is forthcoming, and proceeding with the trial would be futile, amounting to abuse of the court process. The guiding Supreme Court precedents permit consideration of compromise in such rare situations, notwithstanding the non-compoundable and societal nature of the alleged offences. The nature of injuries and weapon are relevant, but determinative is the judicial assessment of the possibility of conviction in light of trial evidence. The High Court’s exercise is fact-specific, guided by established parameters but not a blanket rule for all such offences. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab : (2014) 6 SCC 466; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan : (2019) 5 SCC 688; Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025 (SC, 11.02.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Detailed discussion and application of Bhajan Lal’s categories for quashing; application of the test of futility of prosecution where witnesses resile; reiteration of Supreme Court’s fact-based approach in Narinder Singh and Laxmi Narayan on powers to quash even in Section 307/Arms Act charges where conviction prospects are bleak. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR registered following a shooting resulting in firearm injury; charges framed under Section 109(1) and 3(5) BNS and Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act; settlement had occurred; trial witnesses (victim and his brother) had turned hostile, not attributing acts to petitioners; IO confirmed no antecedents/criminal record for petitioners; parties sought quashing based on compromise and lack of evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in cases with similar facts |
| Follows | Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688; Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that even in “heinous” or serious offences (like attempt to murder, use of firearms) quashing is legally possible in rare situations where material witnesses, including the injured/complainant, wholly exonerate the accused, leading to a negligible prospect of conviction.
- Applies and clarifies the law post-BNSS (Section 528, pari materia Section 482 CrPC) regarding the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings.
- The State’s opposition, citing gravity of offence and Supreme Court bar on quashing Section 307/Arms Act offences, is not conclusive if the trial is rendered futile due to lack of prosecution evidence.
- Lawyers may cite this precedent to support quashing petitions in cases where witnesses have resiled and compromise is genuine, even when the FIR invokes non-compoundable or societal offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment begins by noting the limits and scope of the court’s inherent power to quash under Section 528 BNSS (analogous to Section 482 CrPC), and refers to exhaustive categories laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
- The court then addresses whether these powers extend, in actual trial scenarios, to grave offences such as attempt to murder and Arms Act violations, referencing binding Supreme Court precedent.
- Narinder Singh and Laxmi Narayan both lay down that offences like Section 307/Arms Act are generally not to be quashed based on compromise, as they are crimes against society; however, the High Court is permitted to evaluate whether the charge is maintainable based on the actual evidence collected.
- The court applies these principles to the facts: both the complainant (injured) and his brother have, on oath in trial, shifted their version, absolved the accused, and attributed the crime to “unknown person.” No supporting evidence is available; thus, no prospect of conviction exists.
- Proceeding with the trial would constitute an abuse of process; the requirements for invoking inherent powers to quash (quasi-hopeless prosecution, ends of justice) are met, and the judgment is consistent with the latest Supreme Court application in Naushey Ali.
- The court thus concludes that, in these rare factual matrices, even grave offences may be quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Material witnesses (victim and his brother) have not implicated the petitioners during trial and have expressly resiled from their prior version.
- A genuine, voluntary, pressure-free compromise has been reached.
- Continuing the trial is futile and would constitute abuse of process.
Respondents No. 2 and 3
- Admitted compromise and supported the petition for quashing FIR/proceedings.
- No objection to quashing; affirmed statements before trial court confirming no coercion.
State (AAG Haryana)
- Opposed quashing, arguing the offences (Section 109(1) BNS, i.e., attempt to murder, and Arms Act) are grave, non-compoundable, and against society at large.
- Relied on Supreme Court decision in Laxmi Narayan, submitting such offences should not be quashed merely on compromise.
- Emphasised injury to complainant was “dangerous to life”—demonstrating gravity.
Factual Background
FIR No. 221 dated 13.07.2024 was registered at Police Station Sector 13-17, Panipat for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act based on a shooting incident. The complainant alleged the petitioners fired a shot causing him a firearm injury, followed by threats. After the arrest and release on bail of the accused/petitioners, the parties later entered into a written compromise. During the trial, both the complainant and his brother gave evidence exonerating the petitioners and attributing the crime to an unknown person. Affidavits and recorded statements confirmed there was no coercion behind the compromise.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) was analyzed, which is pari materia with Section 482 of CrPC, governing inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings.
- The judgment considered the text and judicial interpretation, recalling that the power is limited to preventing abuse, securing justice, or effectuating court orders.
- Section 109(1) BNS (akin to Section 307 IPC, attempt to murder): expressly non-compoundable, and generally viewed as “heinous,” falling under the societal crime category.
- Section 25(1-B)(a) Arms Act, 1959: also non-compoundable and typically not subject to quashing except in extraordinary circumstances where trial evidence is wholly lacking.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-bench decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the parties to record statements before the trial court to assess the genuineness of the compromise.
- Statements of the Investigating Officer were also recorded to check the antecedents of the accused, and the absence of pending criminal cases was ensured.
- Concludes on the futility of trial after direct evaluation of trial deposition, not merely on compromise documents.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment closely follows and applies Supreme Court precedent, adapting to factual scenario as per Narinder Singh, Laxmi Narayan, and Naushey Ali.