Nirmal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 916 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Nirmal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005033




CRM-M- 50562 of 2024               -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(319)                           CRM-M- 50562 of 2024 (O&M)
                                Date of decision : 15.01.2025
      Nirmal Singh and another
                                        ................Petitioners

                                 vs.

     State of Punjab and another
                                                        .................Respondents


     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

     Present: Mr. G.S. Simble, Advocate for the petitioners.
                Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
                Mr. Dilinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
                                 ...
     RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

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

quashing of FIR No.161 dated 22.12.2015, for offence under Section 406

IPC, registered at Police Station Payal, Police District Khanna, District

Ludhiana, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on

the basis of compromise dated 18.09.2024 (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 Deed, annexed as

Annexures 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 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005033

3. This Court vide order dated 14.10.2024 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, Payal, has sent report dated 07.01.2025. With the report, she

has annexed photocopies of statements of Gurpreet Singh - Special Power

of Attorney holder of respondent No.2-Kamaljit Kaur- complainant and

statement of petitioner No.1- Nirmal Singh, on his behalf as well as on

behalf of his son Ranjit Singh - petitioner No.2 (being Special Attorney of

Ranjit Singh),recorded on 03.12.2024 and also statement of Retd. Inspector

Amrik Singh, recorded on 19.12.2024. On the basis of statements, learned

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, has concluded in its report that

the compromise between the parties is genuine and is not result of any

pressure or coercion in any manner. It is further mentioned in the report that

there are two accused in the present FIR namely, Nirmal Singh and Ranjit

Singh and challan against accused- Ranjit Singh has not been presented as

he was out of country at the time of presentation of challan. Now summons

under Section 105(B) Cr.P.C. has been issued against accused -Ranjit Singh

and no other FIR is pending against any of the accused persons. None of the

accused was 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 lodged against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition

is liable to be accepted.

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005033

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 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 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal.

8. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 BNSS 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 BNSS is

equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

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:-

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005033

"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 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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:005033

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 petitioner 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.161 dated 22.12.2015, for offence under

Section 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Payal, Police District Khanna,

District Ludhiana, alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of

compromise dated 18.09.2024 (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 )
     15.01.2025                                           JUDGE
     chugh
                  Whether speaking / reasoned              Yes / No
                  Whether reportable                       Yes / No



                                       5 of 5