Sushila Devi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
208

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 04.11.2026
Sushila Devi and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for setting aside
the order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in Criminal Appeal No. CRA-113-
2023, titled as Sushila Devi and another v. State of Haryana , whereby the
application dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) moved jointly by the petitioners
and respondent No.2 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of the
offence on the basis of compromise dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) has
been dismissed, and consequently for setting aside the judgment of
conviction dated 24.01.2023 and the order on quantum of sentence dated
25.01.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 2
Gurugram in case arising out of FIR No.71 dated 31.05.2017 registered under
Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram.
2. Briefly stated, the FIR in question was registered on the
complaint of respondent No.2 Balraj Singh. As per the allegations, the
petitioners had offered to sell to him a plot bearing No.40, measuring 125
square yards, situated at Basai Enclave Part-II, Gurugram, of which petitioner
No.1 was the special power of attorney holder. An agreement to sell was
executed on 14.01.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/-. Out of this
amount, Rs.30,00,000/- were paid on the same day and the remaining
Rs.10,00,000/- were paid on 12.05.2015, when a fresh agreement was
executed and 12.11.2015 was fixed for execution of the sale deed. The
complainant alleged that the petitioners had instead sold the plot to one
Kaushalya Devi on 02.11.2015. He further alleged that a post-dated cheque of
Rs.40,00,000/- given by them towards return of the amount was dishonoured.
After investigation, challan was presented and on conclusion of the trial, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram, vide judgment dated
24.01.2023, convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 IPC
and acquitted them of the charge under Section 406 IPC. Vide order dated
25.01.2023, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
and a half years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (Annexure P-2).
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Criminal Appeal No.
CRA-113-2023 (Annexure P-3), in which their sentence was suspended.
During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a compromise
dated 22.05.2024 (Annexure P-4). Under this compromise, the petitioners
agreed to pay Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement,
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 3
in three instalments of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-
payable on 16.07.2024, 16.01.2025 and 16.06.2025 respectively. The
complainant agreed to have no objection to the FIR being cancelled,
compounded and quashed qua the petitioners along with all the consequential
proceedings. On the same day, a joint application under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
(Annexure P-5) was moved before the learned Appellate Court. Thereafter,
the matter was adjourned on several dates for recording the statements of the
parties regarding the compromise. The petitioners paid the instalments to the
complainant from time to time, and the last instalment was paid on
10.10.2025 (Annexure P-6). Vide order dated 01.12.2025 (Annexure P-7), the
appeal was adjourned to 16.01.2026 for payment and arguments. On
16.01.2026, the complainant did not affirm the compromise, and the learned
Appellate Court dismissed the application for compounding by observing that
there was no consensus between the parties. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the entire
settled amount of Rs.12,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant. A demand
draft of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 16.07.2024 was issued in his name, and the
remaining amount was transferred to the bank account of his wife Smt.
Bulkesh in instalments up to 10.10.2025. The complainant accepted and
retained every payment without any protest and he has not returned any part
of it till date. Some delay occurred in the payment of the instalments but it
was not deliberate and the complainant himself kept accepting the delayed
payments. After receiving the whole amount, the complainant has backed out
of the compromise only to keep the petitioners under the threat of the
sentence. Such conduct is a clear abuse of the process of law. The dispute
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 4
between the parties arose from a transaction relating to the sale of a plot, and
it is essentially of a civil and private nature. The learned Appellate Court
dismissed the application by a cryptic order without considering the
payments made by the petitioners. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioners has relied upon the authorities cited as Ruchi Agarwal vs.
Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, (2005) 3 SCC 299 , Babli vs. Khillar
Singh and another, CRM-M-26077-2023, decided on 02.12.2024 (P&H) ,
Ram Lal and others vs. State of Haryana and another, 2008(2) RCR
(Criminal) 823 and Paramjit Khanna vs. Inder Pal, 2018(4) RCR
(Criminal) 757 .
5. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the basis of
the reply filed by way of affidavit. It is argued that the complainant did not
affirm the compromise before the learned Appellate Court and withdrew his
consent before any order was passed on the application. The mere filing of a
joint application does not establish an effective compounding. The alleged
payments and their timeline are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be
gone into in the present proceedings. It is further argued that the petitioners
have been convicted after a full trial and the dishonest intention on their part
stands proved. The impugned order is therefore stated to suffer from no
illegality.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also opposed the
petition. It is argued that the petitioners did not abide by the terms of the
compromise and did not pay the instalments on the agreed dates. As per
clause 2 of the compromise, the deed was to stand cancelled in case of default
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 5
in payment. The complainant was, therefore, not bound to compound the
offence, and he cannot be compelled to give his consent.
7. This Court has heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for
the parties.
8. The record bears out the basic facts of the case. The compromise
dated 22.05.2024 was entered into during the pendency of the appeal and the
joint application for compounding was moved on the same day. The record of
the learned Appellate Court shows that the matter was adjourned on
22.05.2024, 28.08.2024, 04.10.2024 and 05.12.2024 for recording the
statements of the parties regarding the compromise. The payment record
(Annexure P-6) shows that the petitioners paid Rs.3,00,000/- by a demand
draft dated 16.07.2024 drawn in favour of the complainant. They paid
Rs.2,00,000/- in four instalments of Rs.50,000/- each between 02.10.2024
and 10.01.2025, Rs.3,00,000/- on 23.04.2025, Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.07.2025
and the last Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.10.2025. Except the demand draft, these
amounts were credited to the account of Smt. Bulkesh, the wife of the
complainant. In this manner, the entire amount of Rs.12,00,000/- settled
between the parties stood paid by 10.10.2025. Learned counsel for
respondent No.2 has not disputed the receipt of these amounts, and it is not
the case of the complainant that any part of the amount has been returned to
the petitioners.
9. It is true that the instalments were not paid on the dates fixed in
the compromise and clause 2 of the compromise provided that it would stand
cancelled in case of default. However, the complainant never treated the
compromise as cancelled. He continued to accept the instalments after their
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 6
due dates without any protest, and the matter remained adjourned before the
learned Appellate Court for completing the compromise. Under the third
paragraph of Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, a promisee who
accepts performance at a time other than the agreed time cannot claim
compensation for the delay unless he gives notice of his intention to do so at
the time of acceptance. By accepting the delayed payments in this manner,
the complainant waived the stipulation as to time. Having received and
retained the entire amount, he cannot now fall back upon the default clause to
avoid his own part of the compromise. The order dated 01.12.2025 no doubt
records that payment had not been made, but the payment record shows that
the last instalment had already been transferred on 10.10.2025. Similarly, the
observation in the impugned order that the compromise had not been effected
only reflects the stand taken by the complainant on that date. The learned
Appellate Court dismissed the application in one line and did not advert to
the payments received by the complainant under the compromise.
10. It is well settled that compounding of an offence rests upon the
consent of the person entitled to compound it, and the Court cannot compel
the complainant to give his consent. This was reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem vs. State of Haryana and another,
2024 INSC 347 , which was a case arising from this very State. In that case,
the accused had paid the entire settled amount after the dates stipulated in a
settlement reached at the appellate stage, and the complainant still refused to
compound the offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the complainant
could not be compelled to give consent, but it also held that quashing of a
case is different from compounding. Finding no purpose in keeping the
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 7
proceedings pending, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR as well as
the pending appeals against conviction. The relevant part of the judgment
reads as under:-
“All the same, in this particular given case even though
the complainant has been duly compensated by the
accused yet the complainant does not agree for the
compounding of the offence, the courts cannot compel the
complainant to give ‘consent’ for compounding of the
matter. It is also true that mere repayment of the amount
cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the
criminal liabilities under Section 138 of the NI Act. But
this case has some peculiar facts as well. ... There is no
purpose now to keep the proceedings pending in
appeal before the lower appellate court. Here, we
would like to point out that quashing of a case is
different from compounding. ”
11. Thus, the refusal of the complainant to give his consent at the
last stage stood in the way of the learned Appellate Court in compounding the
offence under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, it does not denude this Court of
its power under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings when their
continuance would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2021 INSC 568 , has held that the High Court can exercise its inherent power
to annul criminal proceedings involving offences of a predominantly private
nature, even after conviction, where a compromise has been arrived at. It has
been observed as under:-
“13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving
non-heinous offences or where the offences are pre-
dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 8
irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form
of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck
post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such
discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to
secure the ends of justice. ...”
12. On the question of a complainant resiling from a compromise
after taking its benefit, the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ruchi Agarwal's case (supra) . In that case, the complainant-wife
had agreed in a compromise to withdraw all her complaints, and she obtained
a consent divorce on its basis. She later refused to withdraw her criminal
complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a party who has received the
relief sought by her on the basis of a compromise cannot be permitted to
resile from it, and that continuance of the criminal proceedings in such
circumstances would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed
as under:-
“8. ... Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant
having received the relief she wanted without contest
on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot
now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 9
indicates that the criminal complaint from which this
appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the
respondents.
9. In view of the abovesaid subsequent events and the
conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the
process of the court if the criminal proceedings from
which this appeal arises is allowed to continue. ...”
13. The same view was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Shamim and others vs. Nahid Begum and another, (2005) 3 SCC
302 . Coordinate Benches of this Court in Ram Lal's case (supra) , Paramjit
Khanna's case (supra) and Babli's case (supra) have also held that a party
who has acted upon a compromise cannot be permitted to back out of it. In
Babli's case (supra) , it was observed that if a party is allowed to back out of
a mutual settlement, it would amount to granting a premium to a dishonest
litigant and would render the Court proceedings a mockery.
14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the dispute between
the parties arose from an agreement to sell a plot, and it is predominantly of a
private and commercial nature. The offence under Section 420 IPC is
compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the Court, and
the petitioners stand acquitted of the charge under Section 406 IPC. The
offence has no adverse impact on society at large. The complainant
voluntarily settled his claim for Rs.12,00,000/- and has received the entire
amount. He accepted every instalment without protest and kept the matter
pending for completion of the compromise. After the last instalment had
reached him, he turned around and declined to affirm the compromise before
the learned Appellate Court. Such conduct cannot be approved. The
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-27050-2026 (O&M) 10
complainant has enjoyed the full benefit of the compromise, and he cannot be
permitted to keep the money and at the same time keep the petitioners under
the threat of a sentence. The facts of the present case are, in fact, on a
stronger footing than those in Raj Reddy Kallem's case (supra) . There, the
settlement had been declared frustrated by the Court, whereas in the present
case the complainant himself kept the compromise alive by accepting the
payments. Allowing the appeal to proceed further would serve no useful
purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. In
exercise of the power under Section 528 BNSS, FIR No.71 dated 31.05.2017
registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Shivaji Nagar,
Gurugram (Annexure P-1), the judgment of conviction dated 24.01.2023 and
the order of sentence dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners. Consequently,
Criminal Appeal No. CRA-113-2023 pending before the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Gurugram shall stand disposed of as having been rendered
infructuous and the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners in the appeal shall
stand discharged.
16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.
04.11.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari
JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI
2026.11.04 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document