Punjab-Haryana High Court

Navpreet Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 March, 2025

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568
        865-2024 (O&M)                                                   -1-




      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
257

                                                   CRM-M-56865-20242024 (O&M)
                                                   Date of decision : 07.03.2025

Navpreet Singh and another                                        ...Petitioners
                                                                  ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-   Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Sahil, Advocate
            for respondent No.2/complainant.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for quashing of

FIR No. 245 dated 14.11.2021 (Annexure P P-1),

1), registered under Sections 307,

506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station

Samrala, District Ludhiana (wrongly mentioned as 'District Khanna' in the

FIR) along with with all the subsequent proceeding having emanated therefrom on

the basis of a compromise dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P P-2)

2) arrived at

between the parties.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this

petition are that the aforementioned entioned FIR had been registered on the basis of

the statement made by respondent No. 2/complainant Harpreet Singh @

Harveer Singh alleging therein that on 10.11.2021, petitioner No. 11-Navpreet Navpreet

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -2-

Singh, who was his friend, had come to his house along with pe petitioner titioner No. 2-

Amritpal Singh. Petitioner No. 1 had demanded some money and on his

refusal to give the same, he had proclaimed that he would shot him if money

was not given to him and then fired a shot upon him from his pistol, which

pierced through his throat th and exited ted from his mouth. He had become semi-

semi

conscious and was taken to hospital, wherein he was given medical treatment.

After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The

petitioners were arrested and subsequently they wer weree released on bail. The

trial is going on.

3. This petition has been filed on the grounds that a compromise has

taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant and in

pursuance thereof, respondent No. 2 has agreed to get the aforemen aforementioned tioned FIR

quashed. The said compromise has also been reduced into writing and a copy

thereof has been placed on record as Annexure P P-2.

4. Respondent No. 2/complainant put in appearance through his

counsel and admitted the factum of compromise. Direction was given to the

parties to record their statements before the learned trial Court to show the

genuineness of the compromise.

compromise. The same were recorded on 15.02.2025. The

statement of the Investigating Officer had also been recorded, as per which,

the petitioners ioners do not have any criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though

offence under Section 307 of IPC has been added in the instant case, however,

neither respondent No. 2/complainant nor the other material witnesss i.e. his

mother Jaswinder Kaur, while appearing before the learned trial Court as

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -3-

PW-1 1 and PW-2, PW 2, respectively, have implicated the petitioners in commission

of offences for which they have been booked and chargesheeted. Both these

witnesses have turned hostile and stated that the petitioners had never fired

any shot with the pistol upon the complainant to kill him. It is argued that the

petitioners had been falsely implicated. The compromise arrived at between

the parties is genuine, voluntary and withou withoutt any pressure and, therefore, it is

urged that the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned FIR along

with all the subsequent proceedings is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has stated that

respondent No. 2 has no objection if the present petition is allowed and the

impugned FIR is quashed in favour of the petitioners.

7. On the other hand, Ms. Himani Arora, learned Assistant

Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the allegations against the

petitionerss are quite serious in nature. They have been booked, challaned and

chargesheeted for commission of several offences including offence under

Section 307 of IPC, which is non-compoundable.

non compoundable. The same also falls under

the category of heinous offences and is to be treated as a crime against the

society and not against an individual alone. Respondent No. 2 had sustained a

fire arm injury, which was obviously dangerous to life. Keeping in view the

gravity of offence, no case has been made out for quashing of FIR on the basis

of the alleged compromise. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be

dismissed. In support of her arguments, she has relied upon the authority cited

as State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others : (2019) 5 SCC

688.

3 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -4-

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length

and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. At the outset, it will be beneficial to look into the scope and

ambit of the Court's power under Section 528 of BNSS (which is pari materia

with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) as spelt out in several judicial pronouncements of

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts. The well settled

proposition of law is that in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., the High Court Court is not expected to analyze all the facts, which are

placed before the High Court. The power conferred under this section is very

specific and to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of

Court or to make any such orders as may bbee necessary to give effect to any

order under the Code, such power can be exercised to prevent abuse of

process of Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn up some guidelines

in some categories of cases by way of illustration to circumscribe the exercise

of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of

any Court or to secure the ends of the justice or to give effect to an order of

the Court. A celebrated pronouncement on this point is the case cited as State

of Haryana vs. Bhajan Bha Lal : 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335 335,, wherein several

guidelines have been laid down. Some of them, which are relevant for the

purpose of disposal of the present petition, are reproduced as under:

"(1) (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations gations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -5-

a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) Where here the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non non-cognizable cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengean vengeance ce on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

10. The next question that arises for consideration before this Court

is that as to whether the powers under Section 528 of BNSS can be exercised

to quash the criminal proceedings proceedings in respect of offence under Section 307 of

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -6-

IPC, which is obviously non-compoundable non compoundable in nature. In this context, it will

be proper to firstly first make reference to the observations made by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case reported as Narin Narinder Singh and others hers vs. State of

Punjab and another : (2014) 6 SCC 466, 466, wherein it was observed as under :

"(vi)

(vi) Offences under Section 307 I.P.C. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the soc society iety and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 I.P.C. in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Cour Courtt to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings gs whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties par is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -7-

11. While placing reliance upon Narinder Singh's 's case (supra) and

several other judicial pronouncements, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as

under in Laxmi Narayan's Narayan case (supra) :

"15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-

non compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence un under der Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst

7 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -8-

themselves. However, tthe he High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for fo the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injur injury y is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge charge-sheet sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or d/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-

non compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on so society, ciety, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, conding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc."

(Emphasis supplied)

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -9-

12. Now coming to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case. As per the allegations, allegations, petitioner No. 1 had fired a shot with a

pistol upon n respondent No. 2, thereby causing him fire arm injury when he

came to his house along with petitioner No. 2. As already mentioned above,

neither respondent No. 2 nor his mother, who are the most material witnesses

to the case have supported the prosecution prosecution version with regard to involvement

of the petitioners in this case and both of them have resiled from their

previous versions. Rather, PW-1/complainant PW 1/complainant is shown to have stated that the

pistol brought by petitioner No. 1 to his house on the fateful day w was as picked

up by him when the former had gone to bathroom and its trigger was pulled

accidently leading to firing a gun shot and injuring him and petitioner No. 1

did not fire any shot upon him. On considering the circumstance that

respondent No. 1/complainant himself has not attributed the injury sustained

by him to either of the petitioners and has not stated before the learned trial

Court that either of the petitioners had done any act with such h intention or

knowledge and under such circumstance that if they by that act caused death,

then they would have been held guilty of murder. In these peculiar

circumstances, I have no hesitation in concluding that though a case of

sustaining fire arm injury injury by respondent No. 2, which was obviously

dangerous to life, has been made out but it cannot be stated that it were the

petitioners, who had caused such injuries. Even otherwise, the parties have

amicably resolved their dispute. I am of the firm opinion tthat hat the proceeding

with trial would be a futile exercise as there are no chances of the conviction

of the petitioners in view of the depositions made by respondent No. 2 and his

9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:030887

CRM-M-568 865-2024 (O&M) -10--

mother before the learned trial Court. As such, ends of justice certainly require requ

that the settlement arrived at between the parties be given effect by quashing

the proceedings and it would rather be an abuse of process of law to let the

trial remain pending. In support of this opinion, reliance is placed upon the

observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated

11.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2025, titled as Naushey Ali

and others vs. State of U. P. and others.

others

13. In view the discussion as made above, the present petition is

allowed and FIR No. 245 dated 14.11.2021 (Annexure P P-1),

1), registered under

Sections 307, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at

Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana (wrongly wrongly mentioned as 'District

Khanna' in the FIR) is hereby quashed qua the petitioners along with all the

subsequent proceedings proceeding having emanated therefrom.



07.03.2025
  .03.2025                                                 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                  JUDGE




          Whether speaking/reasoned                        Yes/No

          Whether reportable                               Yes/No




                                      10 of 10