Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-58969-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(237) CRM-M-58969-2022
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
KULWINDER SINGH . . . Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 145 dated 22.07.2021, under Sections 376-D IPC (lateron deleted) and Sections 376, 506 of of IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the present FIR was initially registered against Lovepreet Singh and an unknown person, and the petitioner was not named therein, with the primary allegations being against co-accused Lovepreet Singh. During investigation, the said co-accused Lovepreet Singh was declared innocent, and the RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-58969-2022 petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of his disclosure statement. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 has stated on affidavit that she does not wish to pursue the present criminal litigation, and has therefore voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioner. Reliance in this regard is placed on the compromise deed annexed as Annexure P-2. It is also submitted that, though the petitioner was initially declared proclaimed offender in the matter, however, the said order of proclamation was set aside, and the petitioner duly surrendered before the learned trial Court and deposited the cost as imposed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kapil Gupta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and another", 2022 (4) RCR (Crl.) 497, to contend that FIR containing allegations similar to the present case can be quashed on the basis of compromise. Further reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in "Karan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another", 2021(1) Law Herald 149, to contend that once the parties have compromised the matter and decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. This Court, vide order dated 25.04.2023, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 31.05.2023 has RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-58969-2022 been received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.
8. There is a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been elucidated. In a celebrated judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-
"102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-58969-2022 Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. Reference can also be made to Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction of accused is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put him into great oppression and prejudice and injustice would be caused to him by not quashing criminal case.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had observed that in order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court, inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in which a compromise has been effected.
11. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable offence(s) and quash the proceedings where the High Court is of the view that the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power of RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-58969-2022 quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
12. Trite to say that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, a fluid and ever evolving concept. Though, justice must be administered keeping in mind the broad objectives of legislature, a restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may prevent the Courts from doing substantial justice, which is the end goal of every legal system. Needless to say that this power must ought to be exercised after careful circumspection, particularly in the context of quashing proceedings, bearing in mind, the nature and effect of the offence on the consciousness of the society; the seriousness of the injury, if any; voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; conduct of the parties and other relevant considerations.
13. In view of the afore-referred judgments and after perusing the report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the FIR will accord a quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 145 dated 22.07.2021, under Sections 376-D IPC (lateron deleted) and Sections 376, 506 of of IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s), on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-58969-2022 petitioner(s) in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within a period of one month.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE April 21, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.04.22 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh