[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rano Devi @ Nirmla Devi And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 December, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

           CRM-M-37085-2025                                                                    1


           394                 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
                                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                                               CRM-M-37085-2025
                                                               Decided on: 04.12.2025

           Rano Devi @ Nirmla Devi and others                              .... Petitioners

                                                      versus

           State of Punjab and others                                      .... Respondents

           CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

           Present:            Ms. Kirti Hooda, Advocate for
                               Mr. Ranbir S. Pathania, Advocate
                               for the petitioners.

                               Mr. Amit Kumar Goel, AAG, Punjab.

                               Mr. Raman Kumar Sharma, Advocate
                               for respondents No.2 to 8.

                                  ****
           Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.19,

dated 09.07.2022, under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 120-B IPC, registered at

Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot, Punjab (Annexure P-1)

along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners

on the basis of compromise deed dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-2).

2. FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and

the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally

the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which

is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the basis of

the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court

by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise

and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with

all consequent and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed

in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 directed the parties to

appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements,

as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also

directed to send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate

Pathankot has sent the report dated 30.07.2025 to this Court. With the report,

she has annexed the joint original statements of respondents No.2 to 8 namely

Man Singh, Anjana Devi, Meenakshi, Pooja, Babita, Priya Thakur and Meenu

Rani and accused/petitioners namely Rano Devi @ Nirmala Devi, Harnam

Singh and Kamla Devi, recorded on 28.07.2025. She has also recorded the

statement of ASI Mohan Singh with regard to said compromise. On the basis

of the statements, learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot has

concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is

genuine, voluntary and executed without any pressure, coercion or undue

influence but executed out of free will of the parties and the same is not the

result of any fraud or misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as

per the statement of ASI Mohan Singh, there is no other accused in the present

FIR. The parties are not involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other

criminal case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would

show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give

effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is

equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and

the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the

continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others

Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and

others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases

675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and

others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with

the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.

8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of

Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with

the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the

FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of

the judgment reads as under:-

"61. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

9. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of

judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have

entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be

merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the

prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of

justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section

528 of B.N.S.S.

10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR

No.19, dated 09.07.2022, under Sections 406, 417, 420 and 120-B IPC,

registered at Police Station Narot Jaimal Singh, District Pathankot, Punjab

(Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom