Back
2026 Supreme(P&H) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
Balkar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Another – Respondents
CRM-M No. 3694 of 2026
Decided On : 08-04-2026
For the Appellant : Hemant Hans
For the Respondents: Sunny Namdev, Sahil Garg
Criminal proceedings arising from private, interpersonal, or familial disputes lacking significant societal impact may be quashed by the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, provided a voluntary and genuine compromise has been reached between the parties to promote peace and reconciliation.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 333, 351(2), 75(2) - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Compromise between parties - Where the genesis of the prosecution lies in personal discord arising within the confines of a familial relationship, the dispute is essentially private and interpersonal in character, lacking any element of public outrage or societal impact of a grave or heinous nature - Continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and would defeat the purpose of promoting peace and reconciliation. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered under various provisions of the penal code on the basis of a compromise deed arrived at between the parties. The court directed the parties to record their statements before the trial court, which confirmed that the compromise was voluntary and free from coercion.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the dispute was purely interpersonal and familial, not affecting the collective conscience of society. Given the voluntary nature of the settlement and the absence of any grave public impact, the court found it appropriate to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.
Issues: Whether criminal proceedings arising from a private, familial dispute can be quashed based on a voluntary compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: When a criminal dispute is essentially private and lacks societal impact, the court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to foster reconciliation, provided the compromise is voluntary and genuine.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural validation of settlement and compromise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. consensus on voluntary nature of compromise. (Para 4) |
| 3. private disputes necessitate reconciliation over criminal litigation. (Para 5) |
| 4. quashing fir based on judicial precedents of compromise. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.115 dated 17.04.2025, under Sections 333 , 351(2), 75(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Munak, Karnal, District Karnal along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-4), arrived at between the parties.
2. This Court vide order dated 23.01.2026 had directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa/Duty Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was directed to send its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, parties have appeared before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and got their statements recorded. On the basis of the statements so recorded, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal has submitted report dated 02.03.2026 to the effect that the compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.
5. A careful consideration of the factual matrix would reveal that the genesis of the present prosecution lies in allegations of personal discord arising within the confines of a familial relationship, the petitioner being related to the complainant as her brother-in-law. The substratum of the dispute is, thus, essentially private and interpersonal in character, lacking any element of public outrage or societal impact of a grave or heinous nature. It is not a case where the alleged conduct shakes the collective conscience of society or falls within the category of offences that are to be treated as crimes against the State or at large. Rather, with the intervention of family members and respectable persons of the society, the parties have consciously and voluntarily resolved their differences and chosen to restore harmony. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would not only be an exercise in futility but would also amount to an unwarranted perpetuation of bitterness between the parties, defeating the very purpose of promoting peace and reconciliation.
6. Accordingly, in view of compromise effected between the parties and following the principles laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another , 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others , (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is satisfied that it is a fit case warranting exercise of discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS.
7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.115 dated 17.04.2025, under Sections 333 , 351(2), 75(2) BNS, registered at Police Station Munak, Karnal, District Karnal along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the petitioner on the basis of compromise between the parties.
