Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Kaur And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 15 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
CRM-M No.58040 of 2024 -1-
247 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.58040 of 2024
Date of Decision: 15.02.2025
Rupinder Kaur and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Jagjit Singh Chatrath, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.2 & 3.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.61, dated 11.09.2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5) of
BNS, registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar
(Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
on the basis of compromise (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
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
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 subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 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 Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-
cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar has sent the report dated
14.01.2025 to this Court. With the report, she has annexed the original
statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Charanjit Singh and
original statement of victim/respondent No.3, namely, Manjit Kaur
recorded on 26.11.2024. She has also annexed the original joint statement
of petitioners No.1 to 3, namely, Rupinder Kaur, Kulbir Singh @ Kinda
and Haroop Kaur, minor through her father, recorded on 26.11.2024. On
the basis of the statements, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-cum-
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar has concluded in the report that
the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary and
without any coercion or undue influence and out of free will. It has
further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Jarnail Singh that
there are three accused in the FIR i.e., the petitioners and no accused has
been declared proclaimed offender. It has further been mentioned that as
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
per the report of ASI, the police report pertaining to the said case has not
been filed till today in the Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
record and the report sent by learned learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-
cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
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.61, dated 11.09.2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5)
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:022063
of BNS, registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District
Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising
out of the said FIR are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of
compromise (Annexure P-2). 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.
11. Petition stands allowed.
15.02.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
