Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh Alias Sukhi And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.: 290
Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-8168 of 2025
Date of Decision: March 25, 2025
Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukhi & another
..... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & others
..... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Grewal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Senior DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Balraj Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (Oral)
Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the below detailed First
Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-2),
effected between the parties.
DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-
FIR No. Date Section(s) Police District
Station
97 19.06.2024 452, 323, Canal Bathinda
148, 149 Colony
IPC and
Section 25
of Arms
Act.
(Section
307 IPC
deleted
later)
CRM-M-8168 of 2025 [2]
2. Vide order dated 13.02.2025, 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 ACJM, Bathinda, and as per report dated
21.03.2025, submitted to this Court, 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.
1. Total number of persons found Two
involved as accused in the dispute/FIR
2 Number of complainant/victim(s) Two
3 Whether all the accused and Yes
complainant/ victims are party to
compromise & signed the same.
4 In case, any affected person (accused or No
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 been declared No
as a proclaimed offender/person or any
such proceedings against him/her have
been initiated or pending adjudication.
6 Report of the Court whether Yes
compromise is genuine, voluntary, and
without any coercion or undue
influence.
7 Any other aspect relevant to the present One more FIR is
case pending against
accused Sandeep Singh
only.
CRM-M-8168 of 2025 [3]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for private
respondent, 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.
6. 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".
CRM-M-8168 of 2025 [4]
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);
CRM-M-8168 of 2025 [5]
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]
7. 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.
8. The report alongwith statements of the affected parties
received from learned Court below would reveal that the complainant/victim
person has genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and he has
no objection, if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.
9. 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 17.12.2024.
10. Petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
March 25, 2025
avin
Whether Speaking/ Reasoned: Yes/ No
CRM-M-8168 of 2025 [6]
Whether Reportable: Yes/ No
