Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manav Bansal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 February, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:023703
CRM-M-54439-2024 -1-
326 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54439-2024
Date of Decision: 18.02.2025
Manav Bansal and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurbinder Sidhu, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 9.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 praying for quashing of FIR No.148, dated 27.07.2024 registered
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Moga,
District Moga and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise deed dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. 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 Compromise, annexed as
Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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 04.11.2024 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.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:023703
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Moga, has sent report dated 07.01.2025. With the report, she has annexed
the original statements of respondents No.2 to 9, namely, Gaurav Kumar
(complainant), Gurdeep Singh Ahluwalia, Harwinder Kaur, Amrinder
Singh, Lakshmi, Maninderjit Singh, Navdeep Singh and Jasdeep Singh
(victims) and statements of the petitioners, namely, Manav Bansal, Shifu
Goyal, Reena Goyal and Nidhi Sidhana recorded on 16.12.2024 and
statement of ASI Surjit Singh recorded on 23.12.2024. On the basis of the
statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga has concluded in its
report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine,
voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence and is not result of
any fraud or misrepresentation. It is also mentioned in the report that there
are only four accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is
further mentioned in the report that the accused have not been declared
proclaimed offender in the present case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the
FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present
petition is liable to be accepted.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 9 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga.
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
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:023703
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.
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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:023703
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 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:023703
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. 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 petitioners 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.
12. 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.148, dated 27.07.2024 registered under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, at Police Station City Moga,
District Moga and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are
hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure
P-2).
13. 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.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
18.02.2025 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
