Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-53664-2025 -1-
304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53664-2025
Date of Decision: 03.11.2025
Gurpreet Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Ranwant Singh Sangha, Advocate,
Ms. Shruti Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Guneet Singla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J (Oral)
1. Instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No.3
dated 27.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338,
340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 23 of BUDS Act, registered at Punjab
State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, Crime Wing, District SAS Nagar
Mohali on the basis of compromise deed dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 and the investigation commenced 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 as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, 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 and all the subsequent proceedings
1 of 5
arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 29.09.2025 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
SAS Nagar, Mohali, has sent the report dated 28.10.2025 to this Court. With
the report, she has also annexed original statement of respondent No.2,
namely, Varun Sharma (complainant) and statement of petitioners, namely,
Gurpreet Singh and Mamta Rani recorded on 17.10.2025. On the basis of the
statements and as per statement of Inspector Khushpreet Kaur, learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali has concluded in the report
that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, willful and
without any pressure or influence. It has been mentioned therein that the
petitioners were not declared as proclaimed offender.
5. Reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Rajinder Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, State Crime, Punjab SAS Nagar has been filed on
behalf of respondent-State, in the Court today, same is taken on record.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
7. 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
2 of 5
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
8. 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.
9. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further 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.
3 of 5
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 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."
10. 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
4 of 5
merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the
prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under
Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
11. 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.3 dated 27.05.2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 336(2), 336(3),
338, 340(2), 61(2) of BNS and Section 23 of BUDS Act, registered at
Punjab State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, Crime Wing, District SAS
Nagar Mohali, is hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of
compromise. 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.
12. Petition stands allowed.
03.11.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
ps-I JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
