Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 15925 P&H

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15925 P&H
Judgement Date : 6 December, 2022

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 December, 2022
CRM-M-35876-2021 (O&M)                                                -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
243

                                                     CRM-M-35876-2021 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 06.12.2022
MANJIT SINGH
                                                                        ....Petitioner
                                Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR
                                                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                  *****

Present : Mr. G.S. Hayer, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab..

Mr. G.S. Simble, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

Present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No.110, dated

28.04.2021, under Sections 379-B, 411 (Section 379-B and 411 IPC added later

on and Section 307, 382 IPC deleted later on) registered at Police Station City Sri

Muktsar Sahib and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of the compromise dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of motion was issued on 02.09.2021 and vide order dated

15.11.2022 both the parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for

recording their statements in the context of genuineness of the compromise. The

trial Court was also directed to submit its report with regard to genuineness of the

compromise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.12.2022 has been

received from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Muktsar Sahib. A perusal of the

said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons have been recorded in

1 of 3

CRM-M-35876-2021 (O&M) -2-

the present case, who have stated that the matter has been settled between the

parties and they have no objection in case the FIR in question is quashed and the

compromise effected between them is genuine, without any undue influence and

coercion. It is stated in the report that there is one accused. He has not been

declared as proclaimed offender and is not involved in any other FIR.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone

through the case file.

After perusing the report submitted by the trial Court, this Court

finds that the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner(s) and the

complainant(s). Since the matter has been settled and the parties have decided to

live in peace, this Court is of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice,

the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed.

As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in "Kulwinder Singh

and others Vs State of Punjab", 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, it is held that

High Court has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of

non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution 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 quashing is not confined to

matrimonial disputes alone.

Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and another", 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had also 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. The relevant portion of para 57 of the said

judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

2 of 3

CRM-M-35876-2021 (O&M) -3-

"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.

Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. XXX---XXX"

In view of the above, the petition is allowed and FIR No.110, dated

28.04.2021, under Sections 379-B, 411 (Section 379-B and 411 IPC added later

on and Section 307, 382 IPC deleted later on) registered at Police Station City Sri

Muktsar Sahib, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the

basis of the compromise dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure P-2), are quashed qua the

petitioner.




                                                   (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                        JUDGE
December 06, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
        Whether speaking/reasoned          :      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                 :      Yes/No




                                         3 of 3

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter