Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 March, 2025
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12875-2025
Date of Decision: 21.03.2025
HARJINDER SINGH AND ANR ....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the below detailed
First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 27.02.2025
(Annexure P-2), effected between the parties.
DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-
FIR No. Date Section(s) Police District
Station
0047 26.06.2019 323, 325, 506 Maloud Khanna
and 34 IPC
Short reply dated 20.03.2025, in the shape of affidavit of
Deepak Rai, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Payal,
Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, has been filed on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the same is taken on record.
2. Vide order dated 11.03.2025, the affected parties were
directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for
getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the
compromise. The Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was to submit a report in
this regard giving certain details as enumerated in the said order.
3. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the parties appeared
before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Payal, and as per
report dated 19.03.2025, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got
recorded their respective statements in Court. From the report received
from the learned Court below, the following is discernible:-
Sr. Description
No.
found involved as accused
in the dispute/FIR
complainant/victim(s)
3. Whether all the accused and Yes
complainant / victims are
party to compromise &
signed the same
4. In case, any affected person
(accused or complainant) is
left out or not arrayed as
party in the quashing
petition before High Court,
detail whereof; OR
His/her statement is still to
be recorded, in compliance
to the direction of this
Court, details of such
person
5. Whether any accused has No
been declared as a
proclaimed offender/person
or any such proceedings
against him/her have been
initiated or pending
adjudication
6. Report of the Court Yes
whether compromise is
genuine, voluntary, and
without any coercion or
undue influence
7. Any other aspect relevant to
the present case.
4. At the very outset, learned counsels for the petitioners and the
respondents, jointly state that all the accused and victims, including
complainant are parties to the present quashing petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in view of
the report received from the learned Court below, it is evident that the
matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise,
and there remains no dispute amongst them requiring any adjudication.
Further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the
private parties, pendency of the FIR and consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, and the
same may be quashed.
6. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for private
respondent(s), after going through the statements and the report received
from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have
resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no
objection if the FIR (supra) and all the consequential proceedings are
quashed on the basis of the compromise.
7. Through catena of judgments, Hon'ble the Apex Court and
High Courts (including Punjab and Haryana High Court), have culled out
various principles of law concerning quashing of proceedings emanating
after lodging of FIR, and some of them are as under:-
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS can be
exercised to enhance social amity, and to reduce friction.
Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord,
landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such
matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS in the event of
a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such
cases.
There can never be any hard and fast category which can be
prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section
482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS "to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice".
No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C./Section 359
BNSS, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS.
The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of
harmony and orderly behaviour.
High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in
non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section
320 Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, in order to prevent the abuse of law
and to secure the ends of justice.
Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of
Court.
Such power has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it
sparingly and with utmost care and caution.
The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint.
The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to
maintain and control social order.
The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace,
harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society.
Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two
warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt
attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the
same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of
the society or would promote savagery.
Matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or where
nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or involves
commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
FIR would override the public interest, the Court can quash the FIR
in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.
In this regard, judgments cited are:
1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC
303 (SC);
2. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur
and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC
641 (SC);
3. Ramgopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021
SCC Online SC 834 (SC); and
4. Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and
another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 [P&H FB]
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears
to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of
law since the chances of conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of
the compromise, so effected between the private parties.
9. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties
received from learned Court below would reveal that the
complainant/victim person(s) has genuinely effected a compromise with
the petitioners and he has no objection, if the impugned FIR and
consequential proceedings are quashed.
10. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, including the report received by this Court and also, taking into
consideration the aforementioned settled principles of law, this petition is
accepted and FIR (as detailed in para No. 1 above) and all the
consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the
petitioners, in view of compromise dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure P-2).
11. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
March 21, 2025 JUDGE
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
