[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 December, 2025
CRM-M-58009-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
159
CRM-M-58009-2025
RAVINDER SINGH
....PETITIONER
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 22.12.2025
Date of Uploading:22.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Sushant Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Sujata, Advocate for
Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.157 dated 01.11.2017 under Section 323 of
IPC and Sections 324, 326 of IPC was added later on, registered at Police
Station C Division District Amritsar, Punjab and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.09.2025
(Annexure P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2 On 20.11.2025, the following order was passed:
"The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of
FIR (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom on the basis of a compromise having been
effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that all concerned are parties to the present
1 of 6
petition in terms of the dicta of the Division Bench judgment of
this Court passed in 'Rakesh Das Vs. State of Haryana and
another', Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC;147654-DB.
Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocate has entered appearance on
behalf of respondent No.2 and filed his memorandum of
appearance.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua
the factum of compromise in the following manner:
(i) The parties shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate concerned on 28.11.2025 or any date thereafter as
fixed by trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements
of the petitioner as well as of the complainant qua the factum of
compromise. As and when any such appearance is made, the
trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the needful for recording
the statements of the parties qua the factum of the compromise.
It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either
record the statements of the parties by physical process or by
video conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video
conferencing, the parties concerned shall be duly identified
through video conferencing by their respective counsel, subject
to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer.
(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get
the statements of the parties recorded through some
Commissioner, appointed by the Court who would be some
Advocate having sufficient standing at the Bar. In case the
statement is recorded through some Commissioner, such
Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after
recording statements to the effect that the parties had appeared
before him/her and he/she had recorded their statements as per
law and that the said parties had been duly identified by their
respective counsel. This shall be subject to satisfaction of trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in
either of the aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate shall submit its report on the basis of the statements
so recorded as to whether all the affected parties have entered
into a compromise and as to whether the compromise in
question is found to be a valid compromise and has been
effected without there being any kind of influence or coercion.
The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards
the following facts after seeking information from Investigating
Officer, concerned:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner,
arrayed in this petition?
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/
aggrieved party other than the respondents, arrayed in the
petition?
2 of 6
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed
Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date
of hearing i.e. 18.12.2025.
The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of ₹20,000/- as costs
with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank details
whereof reads thus:
Account No.65018692589;
IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;
Branch Code: 50306;
Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh
Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a
condition precedent for recording of statements in the manner
directed for hereinabove.
It is explicit that depositing of costs shall not create any kind of
equity in favour of the petitioner(s)."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 01.12.2025 from
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar, has been received, which is taken
on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"With due respect, it is submitted that the parties have
appeared before the Court at Amritsar on 28.11.2025 as per
order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court, Chandigarh by which, the parties were
directed to appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate on
28.11.2025 or any date thereafter as fixed by Trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioner as well as
complainant qua the factum of compromise. Petitioner/accused
was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs with the
High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank. Payment of costs and
production of receipt shall be a condition precedent for
recording of statements. It was also directed that after
recording the statements, Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate will
send the report regarding the genuineness of compromise,
whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner
arrayed in this petition, whether there is any other complainant
or affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents arrayed
in the petition, also to intimate whether any accused has been
declared Proclaimed offennder. Complainant Parbodh Kumar
Parmar and accused Ravinder Singh have appeared and
suffered separate statement that compromise has been effected
between them is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence in FIR No. 157 dated 01.11.2017 U/s 323,
324 IPC, Section 326 IPC added later on, PS C. Division,
Amritsar.
Accused Ravinder Singh has appeared and suffered a statement
3 of 6
that compromise has been effected by him with complainant is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence
in FIR No. 157 dated 01.11.2017 U/s 323, 324 IPC, Section 326
IPC added later on, PS C. Division, Amritsar.
ASI Pritpal Singh, No. 1928/ASR, PS C. Division, Amritsar
appeared and suffered the statement that FIR No. 157 dated
01.11.2017 U/s 323, 324 IPC, Section 326 IPC added later on,
PS C. Division, Amritsar has got registered by Parbodh Kumar
Parmar against Ravinder Singh. It is further submitted that
there is no other accused other than accused/petitioner
Ravinder Singh in the instant FIR. There is no other
complainant ог a affected/aggrieved party other than
complainant/respondent Parmodh Kumar Parmar. It is further
submitted. that no accused has been declared as proclaimed
offender in the present case.
So, after going through the above statements of complainant
and accused, this Court is satisfied that a compromise have
been effected between the complainant Parbodh Kumar Parmar
and accused namely Ravinder Singh is found to be a valid
compromise and has been effected without there being any kind
of influence of coercion. Further, as per record, there is only
one accused Ravinder Singh and one complainant Parbodh
Kumar Parmar. No PO proceeding is pending against any of
the party of the present FIR. Cost of Rs.20,000/- is also
deposited with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank
Account no. 65018692589 State Bank of India, High Court
Branch, IFSC Code SBIN0050306 by the accused and receipt
dated 24.11.2025 in this regard placed on the record. Hence,
this report is hereby submitted to your honour, accordingly. "
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the factum of
parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3).
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt
with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to
quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh
4 of 6
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh &
others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and
Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of
September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is
unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it
can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise
between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and
predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance
interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted
upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court
would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because
FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of
injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate
parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected after investigation and
chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise
cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are
of private in nature, High Court is required to consider
antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he
was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to
enter into a compromise.
5 of 6
The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same
as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the
above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 as well.
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR as :-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility
amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial
justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its
nature.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his
own volition
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.157 dated
01.11.2017 under Section 323 of IPC and Sections 324, 326 of IPC was
added later on, registered at Police Station C Division District Amritsar,
Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-3), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
22.12.2025
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
