IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.09.2025 Abhishek Pandey ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramendra Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. By invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.210 dated 26.04.2025 registered under Sections 12, 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 351(3), 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sector 58, District Faridabad, with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) effected between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. They further submit that on the basis of same compromise, cross-FIR got lodged by the petitioners has already been quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in CRM-M-34683 of 2025 (Jatin and others v. State of Haryana and others).

3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court.

4. In compliance thereof, report dated 31.07.2025 from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad, has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise has been entered into with their free will without any threat, coercion or undue influence from any corner qua accused persons.

5. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:-

“57. 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, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire disp