The High Court reaffirms the principles that criminal cases of a personal nature, including those involving Section 308 IPC, may be quashed under inherent powers if a genuine compromise is reached between the parties; follows the established precedents of Kulwinder Singh (P&H) and Gian Singh (SC). The precedent remains binding for future similar cases in Haryana and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/31085/2025 of Kailash Chand and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another |
| CNR | PHHC010906372025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| 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 the Punjab and Haryana High Court jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Full Bench judgment of Kulwinder Singh (P&H) and Gian Singh (SC) |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Quashing of proceedings based on compromise |
| Questions of Law | Whether FIRs under Sections 323, 506, 34, and 308 IPC can be quashed on the basis of a compromise between parties |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principles from Kulwinder Singh (P&H) and Gian Singh (SC) regarding inherent powers under Section 482 (CrPC)/Section 528 (BNSS) and the criteria for quashing on the basis of compromise. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No.68 dated 20.04.2024 was registered against petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 506, 34 IPC with Section 308 IPC added later at Police Station Sadar, Rewari. Parties reached a compromise on 19.05.2025, confirmed by the Magistrate as being voluntary and without undue influence. State and complainant did not oppose the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Proceedings under Sections 323, 506, 34, and even 308 IPC arising out of personal disputes can be quashed if a genuine, voluntary compromise is reached.
- The court’s inherent powers may be invoked where continuing prosecution would serve no useful purpose after amicable settlement.
- Judicial Magistrate’s verification of compromise as genuine and voluntary is crucial.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment to support quashing petitions in similar non-heinous personal disputes, including those involving Section 308 IPC, within the Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered whether the dispute was private in nature and whether the parties had voluntarily settled.
- The Magistrate’s report confirmed the compromise was genuine and voluntary.
- The Court noted that neither the State nor the complainant raised any objections to the compromise.
- Applying the principles from the Full Bench judgment in Kulwinder Singh and its approval by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh, the Court reasoned that the continuation of proceedings would not serve any useful purpose and may lead to abuse of process.
- Therefore, the criminal proceedings were quashed on the basis of the compromise.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings based on a compromise reached with the complainant.
- Asserted that the dispute was purely personal in nature.
- Presented the compromise deed before the court.
Respondent (State)
- State counsel did not dispute the factum of the compromise between the parties.
Respondents No. 2 and 3
- Counsel confirmed the voluntary nature of the compromise.
- Did not oppose quashing in view of the amicable settlement.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Sadar, Rewari, under Sections 323, 506, and 34 IPC, with Section 308 added later. The dispute arose from a personal matter between the parties. On 19.05.2025, parties entered into a compromise. Pursuant to High Court directions, statements confirming the genuineness and voluntariness of the compromise were recorded before the Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate’s report indicated no coercion or undue influence.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court exercised power under Section 528 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), analogous to Section 482 of the CrPC, which empowers High Courts to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
- The Court referenced the legal framework and principles enunciated in established case law concerning the quashing of criminal cases on grounds of compromise, particularly where the offences are not severe or do not involve societal interests.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are indicated in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the trial court to record statements from parties for verification of the compromise and required a report on its genuineness, as a procedural check prior to granting relief.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing law affirmed (Kulwinder Singh [P&H], Gian Singh [SC]).