IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

242 CRM-M-64338-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.11.2025 ROHIT KUMAR VATS AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....Respondents(s)

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present : Mr. Ajay Redhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.

ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is for quashing of the FIR No.0007 dated 02.11.2019, under Sections 323, 34, 354, 377, 406, 498-A & 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Women Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 29.08.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2. Keeping in view the fact that the parties entered into a compromise, this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded in that regard. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 07.11.2025 has been received from the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Bahadurgarh, stating that the compromise arrived at between the parties is voluntary and the same is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence.

3. Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that they have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis.

4. It is to be noted here that apart from usual Section invoked in matrimonial disputes, i.e., Section 498-A IPC, in the present FIR, Sections 377 & 354 of IPC have also been invoked. However, the matter has now been settled between the parties and this Court has to take a call as to whether the FIR in question can be quashed or not. The power of the High Courts to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS even for theoffences which are not compoundable under BNSS, has been discussed in a number of judgments. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has observed 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly 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 wr