Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukha Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 November, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-37299-2023 1
264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37299-2023
Date of Decision:07.11.2025
SUKHA SINGH AND ORS ...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Alisha Soni, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed for quashing of DDR No. 36
dated 19.06.2021 under Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC registered at Police Station
Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran and all other consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.05.2023 (Annexure P-2),
entered into between the parties.
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 arising
therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 03.08.2023 directed the parties to
appear before the Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements,
1 of 5
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,
Patti, has sent the report dated 11.01.2024 to this Court. With the report, he
has also annexed original statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely,
Harpreet Singh and joint statements of petitioners, namely, Sukha Singh,
Balbir Singh and Gurpreet Singh recorded on 05.12.2023 and original
statement ASI Karam Singh recorded on 06.01.2024. On the basis of the
statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, has concluded in the
report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine/correct,
voluntary, without any coercion or undue influence and same is the result of
free will of the parties. It has been mentioned therein that the petitioners were
not declared as proclaimed offenders.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti.
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
2 of 5
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 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
3 of 5
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."
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 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.
4 of 5
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,
DDR No. 36 dated 19.06.2021 under Sections 324, 326, 34 IPC registered at
Police Station Sadar Patti, District Tarn Taran and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.05.2023
(Annexure P-2) 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.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
07.11.2025
kv
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
