[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwinder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 December, 2025
CRM-M-58002-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
297
CRM-M-58002-2025 (O & M)
Date of decision: 09.12.2025
Kulwinder Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Digvijay S. Kadian, Advocate respondent Nos.2 & 3.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR
No.28 dated 28.03.2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 452, 427, 34
IPC, at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar, and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2023, Annexure P-2, on
the basis of compromise dated 19.08.2025, Annexure P-4.
2. This Court while issuing notice of motion vide order dated
16.10.2025, directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate for recording their statements with regard to the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.12.2025 has
been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rupnagar. 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. It is stated in the report that
there are 3 accused. None of the accused has been declared as proclaimed
offender and are not involved in any other FIR.
1 of 4
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through
the case file.
5. The Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and
others vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, 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.
6. Hon'ble the 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.
The relevant portion of para 57 of the said judgment reads thus:-
"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"
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Ramgopal vs. State of M.P.,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 834 while acquitting the accused on the basis of the
compromise arrived at between the parties had observed that, "We thus
sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court
is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of
offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or
2 of 4
vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked
beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind
: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
other relevant considerations."
8. Further, while compounding a non-compoundable offence
after a compromise had been effected, this Court in Sube Singh and
another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal)
102 had held that, "we are of the considered view that the negation of the
compromise would disharmonize the relationship and cause a permanent
rift amongst the family members who are living together as a joint family.
Non-acceptance of the compromise would also lead to denial of complete
justice which is the very essence of our justice delivery system. Since
there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section
482 CrPC after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during
pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to
invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to
certain safeguards."
9. Applying the ratio of the abovesaid judgment to the facts of
the present case that the petitioners have clean antecedents; parties are co-
villagers and residing in the immediate vicinity of each other, who have
amicably resolved the dispute, that relates to the year 2017, this Court
finds that quashing the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom 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.
3 of 4
8. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.28
dated 28.03.2017, registered under Sections 323, 341, 452, 427, 34 IPC, at
Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar, and all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2023, Annexure P-2, are
quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated
19.08.2025.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
09.12.2025 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
