Murari Lal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5810 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Murari Lal And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 December, 2025

CRM-M No.62799 of 2025 (O&M)                     1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

220-2                                    CRM-M No.62799 of 2025 (O&M)
                                         Date of Decision :08.12.2025

Murari Lal and another
                                                       ......Petitioners
                                    Versus

State of Punjab and another

                                                       ...... Respondents

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present :     Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the petitioners.

              Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.

              Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
              Ms. Gaganbir Kaur Kahlon, Advocate for the complainant.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for

quashing of FIR No.267 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC,

Police Station Civil Line Batala, District Batala (Annexure P-1), along with all

other consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR is

being sought on the basis of compromise deed (Annexure P-2).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been

perused carefully.

3. This Court, vide order dated 21.11.2025, in order to check the

genuineness of compromise, had directed the parties to appear before the

Investigating Officer and get their statements recorded, with regard to the

compromise.

4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a status report of Deputy

1 of 5

Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Batala, dated 07.12.2025, has been

received. A perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the

concerned persons have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has

been settled by them, amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in

question is quashed. As per report the compromise effected between the parties

is genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.

5. As far as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is

concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offence punishable under

Section 120-B of IPC, for which the petitioners have been prosecuted are non-

compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to present case are

analysed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, it transpires:-

i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal and private in nature;

ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner(s);

iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity;

iv) that the action of petitioner(s) do not have a serious impact on the society; and

v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the parties.

vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the statements recorded before the concerned Court;

2 of 5

vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or other dubious means,

viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings;

ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;

x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the society or involve matters concerning public policy;

xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the pendency of trial affects career and happiness;

xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;

xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction, sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends of justice.

6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise 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 quashing is not confined to

matrimonial disputes alone.

3 of 5

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, 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 reads thus: "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 of Criminal

Procedure. 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."

8. In view of afore-referred principles of law, and after perusing the

report of the Investigating Officer regarding amicable settlement between the

petitioners and respondent No.2, this Court finds that quashing of 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.

9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR

No.267 dated 11.09.2025, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, Police Station

Civil Line Batala, District Batala (Annexure P-1), along with all other

4 of 5

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed on the basis of

compromise deed (Annexure P-2).

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE 08.12.2025 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5