Surinder Kumar Alias Mangi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3653 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surinder Kumar Alias Mangi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 March, 2025

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708



CRM-M No.2339 of 2025                   -1-



338            THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M No.2339 of 2025
                                        Date of Decision: 25.03.2025

Surinder Kumar @ Mangi and others
                                                            ..... Petitioners

                                    Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                          ..... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

                   ***
Present:    Mr. Arjun Kapur, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Abhinav Singla, Advocate
            for respondents No.2 to 8.
                   ***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR

No.164, dated 04.09.2022, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506, 34 of IPC

(Sections 458 & 500 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station

City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) along with all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise

dated 30.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties.

2. FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2

and the trial started 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

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708

as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are

invoking the inherent power of this Court by 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 along with all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.

3. This Court vide order dated 17.01.2025 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, Phagwara has sent the report dated 27.02.2025 to this Court.

With the report, she has annexed the original statement of

complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Madhvi @ Manju and separate

original statements of respondents No.3 to 8, namely, Gurvinder Kumar

@ Sonu, Gyan Chand, Gurdip Kumar, Sukhwinder Kaur, Pirthi Pal and

Manjit Kumar recorded on 17.02.2025. She has also annexed the separate

original statements of petitioners No.1 to 4, namely, Surinder Kumar @

Mangi, Sunil Kumar @ Sona, Ramesh Lal and Sunita recorded on

17.02.2025. She has also annexed the original statement of ASI Jatinder

Pal recorded on 17.02.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara has concluded in the report that

the compromise effected between the parties is not the result of any fraud

or misrepresentation and is the result of free will of the parties. It has

further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Jatinder Pal that

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708

there is no other accused in the present FIR and the parties are not

involved or declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

record and the report sent by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Phagwara.

6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.

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 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which

prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

7. 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.

8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State

of Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708

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:-

"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 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708

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 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."

9. 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, then continuation of the proceedings would be

merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the

prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case would be securing the ends of

justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under

Section 528 of B.N.S.S.

10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls

within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,

FIR No.164, dated 04.09.2022, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 506, 34 of

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040708

IPC (Sections 458 & 500 of IPC added later on), registered at Police

Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala (Annexure P-1) along with all

consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed

qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 30.12.2024

(Annexure P-2). 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.

11. Petition stands allowed.

25.03.2025                                        (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
rittu                                                    JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned          :   Yes/No
             Whether reportable                 :   Yes/No




                                6 of 6