Amandeep Singh @ Amana And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 3049 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amandeep Singh @ Amana And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 6 March, 2025

                                     Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032183




CRM-M-52719-2024                                               -1-




214

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-52719-2024
                                       Date of Decision: 06.03.2025


AMANDEEP SINGH ALIAS AMANA AND ANOTHER

                                                          ..... PETITIONERS
                                 VERSUS


STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER


                                                          ....RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:    Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Saksham Khunger, Advocate
            for respondent no. 2.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482

Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR no. 213, dated 23.09.2022, under Sections

379-B, 323 IPC (Section 201 of IPC added later on) registered at Police

Station Baghapurana, District Moga, Annexure P-1, and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise, dated 23.11.2023,

Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioners and the complainant to

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032183

settle their disputes in question.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners

and the complainant have settled their disputes by way of compromise dated

23.11.2023, Annexure P-2.

3. As the parties entered a compromise to resolve their disputes

which led to registration of the criminal case, they were directed to appear

before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for getting their statements recorded

in that regard, vide order dated 23.01.2025. Pursuant thereto, a report, dated

01.03.2025, has been received from the Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Moga, at Flag 'B', stating that the compromise arrived at between the

parties is without any pressure, coercion or undue influence and they have

not been declared proclaimed person(s). As per the report of Investigating

Officer, there is no case pending against petitioner no. 2, however, eleven

cases were registered against petitioner no. 1, out of which eight cases have

been decided and three are pending.

4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.2 admit the factum of compromise and submit that they

have no objection to quashing of the FIR on that basis.

5. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in cases Gian

Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303 and State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, that

criminal cases having overwhelmingly civil character, particularly those

arising out of commercial transactions or matrimonial relationships or family

disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their disputes

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032183

among themselves in a bona fide manner by entering into a compromise. On

similar lines is another judgment of the Supreme Court in Shiji alias Pappu

and others v. Radhika and another, 2012 (1) SCC (Criminal) 101, wherein

criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 354 and 394 IPC were

quashed since the parties had entered into a compromise and there were no

chances of conviction.

6. Further, reference can also be made to Full Bench judgment of

this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another,

2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 1052, holding that on the parties settling their

disputes by way of a compromise, the High Court in exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of non-compoundable

offences also, and quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the

process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The power is not

confined to matrimonial disputes alone.

7. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR as well as the aforesaid

report establishes that the present case, which is predominantly of private

nature, falls in the category of cases that can be quashed by the High Court

in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as per law

laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The petitioners have no

criminal antecedents. The offences alleged are not heinous in nature and

cannot be termed as crime against the society; nor do they show mental

depravity of the petitioners. Since disputes between the parties have been

amicably resolved by way of the compromise, continuation of criminal

proceedings will be an exercise in futility as chances of ultimate conviction

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032183

are not there, and it will hamper their peaceful coexistence even after

resolution of disputes.

8. Consequently, this petition is allowed. FIR no. 213, dated

23.09.2022, under Sections 379-B, 323 IPC (Section 201 of IPC added later

on) registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District Moga, Annexure P-1,

and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the

petitioners.

                                                     (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
06.03.2025                                                 JUDGE
Seema
               Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
               Whether reportable           Yes/No




                                           4 of 4