Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azad Singh Alias Rohit And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 24 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
CRM-M No.37738 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
248 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.37738 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.01.2025
Azad Singh @ Rohit and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate and
Ms. Shamli, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
CRM-31093-2024
Allowed as prayed for.
CRM-M-37738-2024
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.92, dated 07.07.2018, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 148, 149 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 308 IPC added and offence under
Section 325 IPC deleted later on vide DDR No.19, dated 16.08.2018),
registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur along with
other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
compromise. Further prayer has been made for staying the proceedings
arising out of the FIR during the pendency of the present petition.
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-4. 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 subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 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 Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has sent the report dated 13.11.2024 to this
Court. With the report, he has also annexed the original statement of
complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Manpreet Singh and original
statements of respondents No.3 & 4, namely, Amandeep Kaur and
Harbans Kaur recorded on 25.10.2024. He has also annexed the original
joint statement of petitioners No.1 to 5, namely, Azad Singh @ Rohit,
Sukhwinder Kaur, Jagtar Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Anita Devi
recorded on 25.10.2024. He has also annexed the original statement of SI
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
Tarsem Singh and Inspector Gurdip Singh recorded on 28.10.2024 and
29.10.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has concluded in the report that the
compromise effected between the parties is not the result of any fraud or
misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties and same is
genuine one. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of
Investigating Officers, there is no other FIR registered against the
petitioners nor they are 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 learned Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Hoshiarpur.
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;
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
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."
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010796
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.92, dated 07.07.2018, under Sections 323, 325, 452, 148, 149 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 308 IPC added and offence under
Section 325 IPC deleted later on vide DDR No.19, dated 16.08.2018),
registered at Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur along with
other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua
the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure
P-4). 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.
24.01.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
