Bhushan Mittal & Anr. vs State Of Haryana & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


210 CRM-M-52241-2026
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
Date of uploading: 03.11.2026

Bhushan Mittal and another
.... PETITIONERS
V/s

State of Haryana and others
.... RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Harish Mehla & Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocates
for the petitioners.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana.


Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.


*
SUMEET GOEL , J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.271 dated 30.10.2025 registered under Sections
316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2) and 61 of the BNS 2023 at Police
Station Sector-14, Panchkula (Annexure P-1), along with all the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated
10.08.2026 (Annexure P-2).
2 On 15.09.2026, the following order was passed:
“The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of
FIR (Annexure P-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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 2

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-DB.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG,
Haryana has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State
of Haryana and accepts notice.
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate has entered appearance on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
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 19.09.2026 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 of
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 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 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 recording statements to the effect that the
parties had appeared before him/her and he/she had
recorded their statements as per law and that the
said parties had been duly identified by their
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 3

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
Investigating 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 any accused has been declared Proclaimed
Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of
hearing i.e. 12.10.2026.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 25,000/- as
costs with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks’
Association, Bank details whereof reads thus:
Account No. 65004775776;
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 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).”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.10.2026 from
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panchkula, has been received, which is taken
on record. Relevant part of the said report reads thus:
“In compliance of the order dated 15.09.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana in CRM-M-52241-2026 in the case titled as
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 4

"Bhushan Mittal & another Vs. State of Haryana and others,"
Complainants/respondents, namely, (1) Ashok Kumar (Goyal) son of late
Sh. Amar Nath and (2) Babli wife of Ashok Kumar both residents of House
No. 2565, Sector-15, Panchkula appeared before the Court. Their joint
statement was recorded on Oath.
2. Complainants/Respondents above named gave a statement in the Court
to the effect that they have entered into a compromise with accused persons
namely, (1) Bhushan Mittal son of Sh. Subhash Chandra (2) Reetika wife of
Sh. Bhushan Mittal both residents of Flat No. 504, G- Block, Royal Empire,
Peer Muchhalla, P.O. Dhakauli, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. They
have stated that the compromise is genuine, has been entered into
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. They submitted
that they have no objection if the FIR No. FIR No. 271 dated 30.10.2025
U/s 316 (2), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340, 351 (2) and 61 of BNS P.S. Sector-
14, Panchkula is quashed as per the terms and conditions of the compromise
dated 10.08.2026.
3. In compliance of order dated 15.09.2026, the petitioners/accused persons
placed on record payment screenshot alongwith affidavit stating that they
have deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the Punjab and Haryana High
Court Bar Clerks' Association, in account No.65004775776, IFSC Code
SBIN0050306, Branch Code 50306, State Bank of India, High Court
Branch, Chandigarh through Unified Payments Interface. Accused person
namely, (1) Bhushan Mittal son of Sh. Subhash Chandra (2) Reetika wife of
Sh. Bhushan Mittal both residents of Flat No. 504, G- Block, Royal Empire,
Peer Muchhalla, P.O. Dhakauli, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab have
appeared in the Court and made a statement to the effect that the matter has
been compromised with the complainant/respondent genuinely, voluntarily
and without any coercion or undue influence. They have requested that the
FIR No. 71 dated 30.10.2025 U/s 316 (2), 318 (4), 336 (3), 338, 340, 351
(2) and 61 of BNS P.S. Sector-14, Panchkula be quashed as per the terms
and conditions of the compromise dated 10.08.2026.
4. A detailed report was also submitted by Investigating Officer of the case
wherein it was informed that the FIR was registered against accused
namely, (1) Bhushan Mittal son of Sh. Subhash Chandra (2) Reetika wife of
Sh. Bhushan Mittal both residents of Flat No. 504, G- Block, Royal Empire,
Peer Muchhalla, P.O. Dhakauli, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab in the
present case. It was also informed that accused persons have not been
declared proclaimed person in the present case.

NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 5

5. In light of statements of the parties on oath and the report submitted by
I.O. ASI Pardeep Kumar, No.4/PKL Economic Offence Wing, Panchkula,
Sector-12, Panchkula the detailed report is hereby submitted as under :-
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner,
arrayed in this petition.
As per the report submitted by Investigating Officer of the case, FIR
was registered against accused persons (1) Bhushan Mittal son of
Sh. Subhash Chandra (2) Reetika wife of Sh. Bhushan Mittal and
there is no other accused in the present case.
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/aggrieved
party other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
AS per report of Investigating Officer, there is no other complainant
in the present case except (1) Ashok Kumar (Goyal) son of late Sh.
Amar Nath and (2) Babli wife of Ashok Kumar and they are party to
the petition.
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared proclaimed offender?
No accused has been declared as proclaimed offender in the present
case.
6. Accordingly, report of compromise is being forwarded to the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana along-with copies of statements of parties
on oath and other accompanying documents for necessary action.”
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 admits the factum of
parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner are quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. 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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 6

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 :
(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.
(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 transactions 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 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

chargesheet 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 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
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.

CRM-M-52241-2026 P a g e | 7

said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 as well.
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 BNSS, 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 compromise 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.271 dated
30.10.2025 registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340, 351(2)
and 61 of the BNS 2023 at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula (Annexure P-
1), along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis
of compromise deed dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P-2), stands quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.




(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
03.11.2026
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
NAVEEN NAGPAL
2026.11.03 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court Chandigarh.