Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 28 January, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012332
CRM-M-52234-2024 -1-
308 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52234-2024
Date of Decision: 28.01.2025
Gurpreet Singh and others ..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. J.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanpreet Singh Kalra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 praying for quashing of FIR No.100, dated 06.04.2018 registered
under Sections 51, 63, 68-A of Copyright Act and Section 420 IPC, at
Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala and subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 01.10.2024
(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.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012332
3. This Court vide order dated 21.10.2024 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 Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Rajpura, has sent reports dated 24.12.2024 and 22.01.2025.
With the report, he has annexed the photocopy of the statement of
respondent No.2- complainant Paramvir Anand and joint statement of
petitioners No.1 and 2, namely, Gurpreet Singh and Indermeet Singh @
Inderpreet Singh @ Money recorded on 04.12.2024 and statement of
petitioner No.3 Manish Kumar Batra recorded on 20.01.2025 and Inspector
Balvinder Singh recorded on 09.12.2024. On the basis of the statements,
learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura has concluded in its
report that the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary, result of free
will of the parties and not the result of any fraud or misrepresentation. It is
also mentioned in the report that there are only three accused in the present
case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that
neither the accused have been declared proclaimed offender in the present
case nor are involved in any other criminal 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 respondent No.2 has also pleaded no
objection, if the present FIR is quashed.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012332
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura.
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:012332
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
between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012332
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.100, dated 06.04.2018 registered under
Sections 51, 63, 68-A of Copyright Act and Section 420 IPC, at Police
Station City Rajpura, District Patiala and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of
compromise (Annexure P-2).
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012332
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
