CRM-M/33025/2026 of GOPESH GARG Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER on 23 July 2026

1. This petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing of impugned FIR No.606 dated 25.12.2025 u/ss 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 BNS, 2023 (challan filed under Section 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340 BNS, 2023) registered at Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, along with all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom, including the final report under Section 193 BNSS, 2023 (173 Cr.P.C.) dated 18.05.2026 arising out of the above mentioned FIR, on the basis of mutual compromise effected between the parties.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, a specific assertion was made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the following effect : ‘Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 CRM-M No.48043-2023 titled Rakesh Dass v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 22.11.2024.’

3. Upon the trial Court being directed to send a report, the report dated 21.7.2026 has been received from the trial Court. Relevant portion of which read thus: ‘there are two persons namely Gopesh Garg and Rakesh son of Sh.Devender are involved in the present FIR, however the name of accused Rakesh son of Sh. Devender is not mentioned in the present petition. It is submitted that the accused Rakesh son of Sh. Devender is also arrayed as accused in the present petition.’

4. A perusal of the aforesaid report reflects that there are two accused in the present FIR, namely Gopesh Garg and Rakesh son of Sh. Devender. However, the present petition has been filed only by Gopesh Garg and the name of co-accused Rakesh son of Sh. Devender has not even been disclosed in the array of parties.

5. In factual milieu of the case in hand, it is unequivocally clear that the compromise is not between all the parties concerned. One of the accused, namely Rakesh son of Sh. Devender, is neither a party in the present petition nor shown to be a party to the compromise on the basis of which the FIR is sought to be quashed. It is well settled that in petition(s) seeking quashing of an FIR on the basis of compromise, the appearance of all the necessary parties before the trial Court for verification of the compromise is mandatory so as to satisfy the Court with regard to its voluntariness and genuineness. In the absence of such verification, this Court cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings. Since one of the accused has failed to appear before the learned trial Court, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the present petition. In the absence of all the necessary parties before the Court as also in the absence of a comprehensive compromise, this Court is of the considered view that no case for quashing of instant FIR is made out. The very foundation of the present petition, therefore, remains incomplete. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to approach the Court with complete candour. It is a trite law that a litigant invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court must approach the Court with clean hands. Any attempt to circumvent/withhold any material information disentitles the litigant(s) from the discretionary relief. The compromise relied upon by the petitioner cannot be made the basis for quashing the FIR when it is admittedly not between all the parties concerned and when the petitioner has failed to disclose all material facts before this Court. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.48043 of 2023 titled Rakesh Dass v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 22.11.2024.

6. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

(i) The petition in hand is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ii) It is, however, clarified that any observation(s) made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE 23.7.2026 Ashwanii/Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable:

Yes/No