In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed an FIR registered under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision was based on a mutual settlement reached between the parties.
The case, titled Gaurav and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Others, provides valuable insights into the legal principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking the quashing of FIR No. 0306 dated 01.12.2022, registered at Police Station Sector 17/18, Gurugram, Haryana. The FIR was filed against them under Sections 323, 34, and 506 of the IPC. The petitioners argued that they had reached a settlement with the complainant, Mukul Dahiya, on 25.04.2025, and requested the court to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Ruling on Land Sale Dispute: Unstamped Agreements Cannot Support Injunction Orders
The High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel, directed the parties to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC), Gurugram, to record their statements regarding the compromise. The JMIC submitted a report confirming that the settlement was genuine, voluntary, and free from coercion or undue influence. The report also clarified that no other accused were involved, and none had been declared proclaimed offenders.
The court relied on several landmark judgments to justify its decision:
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012): The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is wide and can be exercised to quash proceedings in cases where the dispute is predominantly civil or private in nature.
Read also:- SC Restores Higher Compensation for Amputee Engineering Student in Road Accident Case
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2007): This case reiterated that the High Court can quash FIRs in non-compoundable offences if the parties have settled and the offences are not serious or heinous.
Ram Gopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021): The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court must assess the nature of the offence, the injuries sustained, and the weapons used before quashing an FIR under Section 307 IPC.
The court noted that the statutory provision of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, mirrors Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, and thus, the same principles apply.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Kerala Cricket Association’s Life Ban on Former Ranji Player, Orders Fresh Hearing
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Nature of Offences: The offences under Sections 323, 34, and 506 IPC are primarily private and do not have a severe impact on society.
Voluntary Settlement: The compromise was found to be genuine and voluntary, with no coercion or undue influence.
Judicial Discretion: The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, emphasizing the need to promote peace and substantial justice.
After considering the facts, the judicial magistrate’s report, and the legal precedents, the High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The court highlighted that the settlement would bring peace and tranquility to the parties involved, furthering the cause of justice.
Case Title: Gaurav and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CRM-M-30496-2025