Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chand Gill Alias Vansh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-52337-2025 1
290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-52337-2025
Date of decision: 04.11.2025
CHAND GILL ALIAS VANSH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Iqbalpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.166, dated 22.08.2023, under Sections 336, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC
and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Gate
Hakima, District Amritsar Punjab along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
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 the Compromise/order, annexed 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 25.09.2025 directed the parties to
1 of 5
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,
Amritsar has sent the report dated 01.11.2025 to this Court. With the
report, he has annexed the photocopy of statement of
complainant/respondent No.2, namely, Mukesh Kumar and photocopy of
statement of accused-petitioners, namely, Vansh @ Chand Gill, Vishal
Kumar, Kashu, Akash and Manga Singh @ Cheeku recorded on
08.10.2025. He has also annexed the photocopy of statement of
Investigating Officer IO/ASI Shamsher Singh recorded on 01.11.2025. On
the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar
has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the
parties is genuine, valid, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of IO/ASI
Shamsher Singh, except the accused-petitioners, no other persons arrayed
in the case. It has further been mentioned that none of the accused has been
declared proclaimed offender.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.
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.
2 of 5
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 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
3 of 5
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
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."
4 of 5
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.166, dated 22.08.2023, under Sections 336, 506, 148 and 149 of
IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Gate
Hakima, District Amritsar Punjab along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 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.
04.11.2025 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
monika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
5 of 5
