Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1486 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 January, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542




CRM-M-56900-2023                          -1-


288         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-56900-2023
                                                   Date of Decision: 28.01.2025
Pawan Kumar                                             ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
State of Punjab and others                              .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for
            Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
            Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
            Ms. Amarjeet Kaur, Advocate,
            Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

praying for quashing of FIR No.134, dated 08.05.2022 registered under

Sections 420 and 120 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals

(Regulation) Act, at Police Station Cantonment, District Police

Commissionerate, Amritsar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom

on the basis of compromise deed dated 25.09.2023 (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 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.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542

3. This Court vide order dated 13.05.2024 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 Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Amritsar, has sent report dated 15.07.2024. With the report, he has

annexed the photocopy of the statement of Surjit Singh respondent No.3 on

his own behalf and on behalf of Ramanpreet Singh (being his attorney) and

statement of the petitioner, Pawan Kumar (through Special Power of

Attorney Ram Dev) recorded on 28.05.2024 and statement of ASI Satnam

Singh recorded on 18.06.2024. On the basis of the statements, learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Armitsar has concluded in its report that the

compromise appears to be genuine, out of their free will, voluntary and

without any coercion or undue influence. It is also mentioned in the report

that there is only one accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioner.

It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused has been

declared proclaimed offender in the present case nor he is 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.m,j

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has also pleaded

no objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar.

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.

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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542

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 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542

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. 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.134, dated 08.05.2022 registered under

Sections 420 and 120 IPC and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals

(Regulation) Act, at Police Station Cantonment, District Police

Commissionerate, Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012542

therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner, 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)
28.01.2025                                            JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/No




                                6 of 6