Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahesh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 11 March, 2026
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
176
*****
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M No.54857 of 2025
Date of decision : 11.3.2026
Date of uploading : 12.3.2026
Mahesh and others .............Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sumit Nandvani, Advocate, for the petitioner
(through VC)
Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Senior DAG, Haryana
Ms. Sheetal Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no.2
(through VC)
---
SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)
CRM No.9965 of 2026
The present application has been filed for restoration of the main case,
which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.2.2026.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
record, this court deems it appropriate to restore the case to its original
number and status.
Ordered accordingly.
Main case be taken up on Board today itself.
CRM-M
M No.54857 of 2025
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.
No.181 dated 27.3.2025 u/Ss
u
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -2-
316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,, 2023,
registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar,
adar, and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise/mutual agreement dated
28.8.2025 (Annexure P-4).
2 On 22.1.2026,, the following order was passed:
‘The
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (Annexure
P-1)
1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a
compromise having been effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that all concerned are parties to the present petition in
terms of the dicta of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in ‘Rakesh
Das Vs. State of Haryana and another‘, Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC;147654-
2024:PHHC;147654
DB.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Ms. Priyanka Sadar, Sr. DAG, Haryana has put in
appearance on behalf of respondent No.1
No.1-State
State of Haryana and accepts notice.
Mr. Sajjan Kumar, Advocate has entered appearance (Through V.C.) on behalf of
respondent No.2.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of
compromise in the following manner:
(i) The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate
concerned on 03.02.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well
as of the complainant qua the factum off compromise. As and when any
such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the
needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the
compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either
record
rd the statements of the parties by physical process or by video
conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing,
the parties concerned shall be duly identif
identified through video conferencing
by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding
Officer.
(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the
statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed
by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at
the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner,
such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -3-statements to the effect that the parties had appeared
eared before him/her and
he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties
had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject
to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the
aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report on the
basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have
entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in question is found
to be a valid compromise and has been effected without there being any kind of
influence or coercion.
The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the
following facts after seeking information from Invest
Investigating
igating Officer, concerned:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed in
this petition?
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party
other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
(iii) Whether
her any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender? The
report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing i.e.
25.02.2026.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- as costs with the
Punjab & Haryana High Court Employees
Employees Welfare Association, Bank details
whereof reads thus:
Account No.37167209613;
IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;
Branch Code: 50306;
Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh
Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition
conditio
precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for hereinabove.
It is explicit that depositing of costs shall not create any kind of equity in
favour of the petitioner(s).’
petitioner(s).
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 16.2.2026 from
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram has been received, which is
taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
follows:
‘The
The para-wise
para wise report in accordance with directions of the Hon’ble High Court
are as follows:-
follows:
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -4-(1) Whether
Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioners arrayed in this
petition?
As per the statement of Investigating Officer, there are only six persons found
nvolved as accused in the FIR namely, 1. Mahesh son of Subender Singh, 2.
aurabh Sharma son of Shri Jitendra Sharma, 3. Rahul Kumar Sharma @ Rahul
harma son of Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, 4. Shivani Malik wife of Shri Mahesh,
. Shivam Malik, 6. Vikas Kumar.
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than
the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
As per statement of investigating officer, there is only one complainant in the
present case namely, Karan Singh son of Shri Puran Mal, Director of M/s KPRV
Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Office at: House No.304/38, Rajiv Colony, NH-8,
NH
Gurugram, Haryana-122001.
Haryana 122001. Except the above
above-named
named persons, there were no
other affected persons/aggrieved party (accused or complainant) in the present
case.
(iii). Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
Ass per statement of investigating officer, accused Mahesh, Saurabh Sharma,
Rahul Kumar Sharma @ Rahul Sharma, Shivani Malik, Hanesh Kummar Avam
Malik and Vikas Kumar have not been declared proclaimed ffenders in any
criminal case. The investigating officer also submitted that the accused Saurabh
Sharma, Rahul Kumar @Rahul Sharma and Vikas Kumar have not involved in
any other criminal case nor any such proceedings have been initiated or pending
against them.
However, the investigating officer submitted that cco-accused
accused Shivam, Shivani and
Mahesh have involved in following cases:
1.FIR No./Dated/Under Sections/Police Station
2. FIR No.53 dated 02.04.2025 under Sections 318(4), 61 BNS, P.S. Sector
Sector-37,
37,
Gurugram against accused Shivam, Shivani and Mahesh.
3. FIR No.67 dated 11.04.2025 under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340,
61 BNS, 2023, P.S. Sector-37,
Sector 37, Gurugram against accused Shivam, Shivani and
Mahesh.
4. FIR No. 89 dated 15.05.2025 under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340,
61 BNS, 2023, P.S. Sector-37,
Se 37, Gurugram against accused Shivam, Shivani and
Mahesh.
5. FIR No. 262 dated 27.03.2025 under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B
IPC, 1860, P.S. Sector-10,
Sector 10, Gurugram against accused Shivam, Shivani and
Mahesh.
6. FIR No.191 dated 30.05.2025, under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340,
61 BNS, 2023, P.S. Bhondsi, Gurugram against accused Shivam, Shivani and
Mahesh.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -5-
7. FIR No. 144 dated 25.06.2024, under Sections 323, 506, 34 of IPC, 1860, PS.
Sector 37, Gurugram against accused Shivam and Mahe
Sector-37, Mahesh.
iv). Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without
any coercion or undue influence;
On the basis of statements made by parties, this Court is of the considered view
that the compromise effected between them appears to be val
valid
id compromise and
same is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion & influence and out of their own
freee will.
The requisite report is being submitted please.’
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of parties
having compromised and states
st that she
he has no objection in case the
impugned FIR is quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that she
he has no objection in
case the impugned FIR is quashed as the parties have compromised the
matter amicably.
6. I have heard learned
learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through the records of the case.
7. This Court and Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding
in non-compoundable
compoundable offences in
in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and another, 2012 (10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs.
State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal
and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322
(Criminal
al Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021).
2021)
The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered
by Apex Court and this Court is:
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider
and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -6-
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it
can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise
between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and
predominantly of civil character like commercial transaction
transactionss or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions
involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance
interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted
upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court
would
ould not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because
FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of
injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate
parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected after investigation and charge-
charge
sheet is filed/ charges framed during the trial. Such exercise
cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non–compoundable
compoundable offences even which
are private in nature, High Court is required to consider
antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he
was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to
enter into a compromise.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNS, 2023 to quash the FIR as ::-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and
tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the
cause of substantial justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the co
compromise
mpromise is said to be
voluntary in its nature.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into
compromise on his own volition.
9 Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 181 dated 27.3.2025
under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
CRM No.9965 of 2026 in/and
CRM-M
M No.54857
No. of 2025 -7-
Sanhita,, 2023, registered at Police Station Gurgaon Sadar; and all
consequent proceedings arising therefrom
therefrom, on the basis of compromise/
compromise
mutual agreement dated 28.8.2025
8.8.2025 (Annexure P
P-4),, are, hereby, quashed qua
the petitioners.
petitioner
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
11.3.2026
Ashwani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-03-2026 03:54:46 :::
