[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 December, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -1-
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.12.2025
MANDEEP SINGH AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Ms. Malini Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Bhavnish Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 11.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
CRM-49425-2025
This application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under
Section 528 of BNSS for preponement of the main case, which is stated to be
fixed for 28.01.2026.
Notice in the application.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and Mr. Bhavnish Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf
of respondents No.2 to 11 and they have no objection if the main case is taken
up on board to day itself.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and
the main case is taken up on board today itself.
Main case
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.235,
dated 19.09.2024 registered under Section 331(6), 118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190
1 of 6
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -2-
of BNS, 2023 (Sections 109, 118(2) added later on), at Police Station Sadar
Mansa, District Mansa and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the
basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) and DDR No.51 dated 19.09.2024, under
Sections 118(1), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, registered at Police Station
Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.
2. The FIR in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and
the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of
respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their
inter se dispute, which is apparent from Annexure P-3. On the basis of the
compromise, the petitioner is 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 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be
quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Mansa has sent report dated 20.10.2025. With the report, she has annexed the
original statements of respondent No.2/complainant-Raju Ram, respondent
No.3-Shindi Kaur @ Karamjit Kaur, respondent No.4-Pala Ram, respondent
No.6-Lakhwinder Singh, respondent No.7-Jaswinder Singh, respondent No.8-
Mani Singh @ Manpreer Ram, respondet No.9-Kalu @ Kaku Singh,
respondent No.10-Bobby Singh and respondent No.11-Balwinder Singh and the
accused/petitioner No.1, Mandeep Singh, petitioner No.2-Bhura Singh,
petitoner No.3-Jagdeep Singh @ Jasdeep Singh, petitioner No.5-Bittu Ram @
2 of 6
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -3-
Bittu Singh, petitioner No.6-Bhajan Ram @ Bhajan Singh, petitioner No.7-
Nikky Kaur, petitioner No.8-Meeto Kaur, petitioner No.9-Pammi Kaur and
petitioner No.10-Suraj Ram @ Suraj Singh and ASI Daljit Singh dated
08.10.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Mansa has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine,
voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. It has been mentioned
in the report that there are only 10 accused in the present case. It is further
mentioned in the report that respondent No.5 has died and his son, namely,
Bobby Singh @ Bobby Ram (minor) has recorded the statement. It is further
mentioned in the report that the petitioners neither as declared proclaimed
offender, nor they are involved in any other case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have
compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered
against the petitioner quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be
accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 11 has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and
the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa.
8. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is equally relevant
for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the
offences under the BNS, 2023.
3 of 6
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -4-
9. 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.
10. 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
4 of 6
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -5-
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 a 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."
11. Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 118(2)
(earlier 326 IPC) yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have
settled the dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the
5 of 6
CRM-M-46838-2025 (O&M) -6-
spirit of brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.
12. 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, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the
proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing
and accepting the prayer of the petitioner by quashing the FIR would be
securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature
enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
13. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand
squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents
and hence, FIR No.235, dated 19.09.2024 registered under Section 331(6),
118(1), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 109, 118(2) added later
on), at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3) and DDR No.51
dated 19.09.2024, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS,
registered at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa, is hereby, quashed
qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3).
14. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and
conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court
below. Petition stands allowed.
12.12.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
