AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL
The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.53 dated 30.03.2018 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of the Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 registered at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
On 05.08.2026, the following order was passed:
“1.Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.53 dated 30.03.2018 under Sections 420, 406, 120- B IPC and Section 3 of The Haryana Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise said to be arrived at between the parties.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of FIR, parties had duly settled the matter vide settlement agreements and respondents No. 2 to 6 were willing to get the FIR quashed.
3.Learned State counsel has raised no dispute regarding factum of compromise. Learned counsel for the private respondents concedes the factum of compromise between the parties.
5.The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on 10.08.2026 or any other date convenient to the Court for recording of their statements in respect of the compromise, either through video conferencing or in person. The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit report on or before 16.09.2026 on the following aspects:
1.Number of accused arraigned in the FIR.
2.Number of accused who have appeared before the Trial Court and made statements.
3.Whether during investigation, any additional accused has been added and he/she is a party to the compromise.
4.Whether any of the accused is an absconder/proclaimed person(s).
5.Whether after registration of the FIR, any offence was added or deleted during investigation.
6.Whether investigation is pending against any of the accused or any accused has been declared as innocent.
7.Name(s) of the complainant and injured/aggrieved.
8.Whether all injured/aggrieved have appeared and their statements recorded.
9.Whether Investigating Officer has appeared and whether his/her statement has been recorded.
10.The stage at which the trial is pending.
11.Satisfaction of the Trial Court that the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.
12.Whether any other criminal case or proceedings is pending against the accused.
6.Learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall ensure that the complainant victim(s) are duly identified by their counsels at the time of recording of statements. Photographs of the complainant/victim(s) be also affixed on the statement.
7.List on 16.09.2026.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 19.08.2026 from Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewari has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
“1.As per the investigating officer, there are five numbers of accused in the present FIR namely Deepak Gosai, Nitin Kumar, Dinesh Sharma, Man- jeet Johar alongwith Asian developer Ltd. Company.
2.All the above named accused persons namely Deepak Gosai, Nitin Kumar, Dinesh Sharma, Manjeet Johar have appeared before this Court and got recorded their statement.
3.As per the investigating investigation, one additional officer, during accused namely Manjeet Johar has been added later on by virtue of disclosure statement of other accused namely Dinesh Sharma. The above accused has already joined investigation on 29.04.2024 and he is also a party to the compromise.
4.As per the investigating officer, in the present FIR, accused persons namely Manjeet and Deepak Gosain have been declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 04.11.2023. However, both the accused persons have already joined the investigation. Moreover, the following accused persons have been declared Proclaimed persons/offenders in following FIRs:-
Deepak Gosai, Dinesh Sharma and Nitin Kumar:- The above said accused persons have been declared proclaimed persons in complaint No.NI- 622 of 2016 titled as Rajesh Yadav Vs. Director Asian Developers Ltd., complaint No.NI-625 of 2016 titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. Director Asian Developers Ltd., complaint No.621-2016 titled as Rakesh Yadav Vs. Director Asian Developers Ltd.
5.As per the investigating officer, no offence has been added or deleted after the registration of the present FIR.
6.As per the investigating officer, investigation is pending only against accused namely Nitin Kumar and none of the accused has been declared inocent till date.
7.As of per the investigating officer. names complainant/aggrieved are Devender Kumar, Sunil & Laxman Yadav, Meenakshi Sharma (now expired) and Krishna Devi.
8.As per the investigating officer, all the aggrieved persons (except Meenakshi Sharma since deceased) have appeared before this Court. Since aggrieved person Minakshi Sharma has expired on 03.05.2021, therefore, her legal representative i.e. her husband Vishnu Sharma appeared before this Court for the purpose of making statement.
9.Invgestigating Officer namely SI Sanjay Kumar has appeared and made statement before this Court on 14.08.2026.
10.Trial is pending at the stage of framing of charges. However, as per the investigating officer, challan against the accused Nitin is still pending as he joined the investigation on 12.08.2026.
11.From the statements of the parties, compromise arrived between the parties seems to be genuine and the compromise does not seem to be the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties.”
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 admits the fact that the parties have compromised the matter and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
Similarly, learned State counsel has stated that he has no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences 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 Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is :
Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
However, wider the power greater the caution.
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 transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
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.
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 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.
Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of 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. The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.
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 BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :-
Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.
The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.
The parties have compromised.
As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.
Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.53 dated 30.03.2018 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of the Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 registered at Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, are, hereby, quashed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.