Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shivangi And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 November, 2025
CRM-M No.56051of 2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
260 CRM-M No.56051 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision :07.11.2025
Shivangi and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. S.K.Chodhary, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurmej Singh Bhinder, Advocate
for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 (wrongly
mentioned as 428) of BNSS for quashing of FIR No.50 dated 18.07.2019,
under Sections 452, 323, 427, 380, 506, 325 and 34 IPC, Police Station
Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot (Annexure P-1), along with all other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The quashing of FIR is being
sought on the basis of compromise dated 05.08.2025.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case file has also been
perused carefully.
3. This Court while issuing notice of motion, vide order dated
13.10.2025, in order to check the genuineness of compromise, had directed the
parties to appear before the learned trial Court and get their statements
recorded, with regard to the compromise.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, a report from the Court of learned
1 of 5
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot, dated 30.10.2025, has been received. A
perusal of above said report reveals that statements of the concerned persons
have been recorded, who have stated that the matter has been settled by them,
amicably, and that they have no objection if the FIR in question is quashed. As
per report the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, without any
undue influence and coercion.
5. As far as the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners is
concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the offence punishable under
Sections 452, 380, 506 and 34 IPC, for which the petitioners have been
prosecuted, are non-compoundable. If the facts and circumstances pertaining to
present case are analysed in the backdrop of relevant legal principles, it
transpires:-
i) that the occurrence involved in the present case is purely personal
and private in nature;
ii) that there is no criminal history of the petitioner(s);
iii) that it does not involve heinous and serious offence of mental
depravity;
iv) that the action of petitioner(s) do not have a serious impact on the
society; and
v) that the cause of administration of criminal justice system would
remain unaffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between
the parties.
vi) that the accused and the private respondent(s) have amicably settled
the matter between them in terms of the compromise deed and the
statements recorded before the concerned Court;
2 of 5
vii) that a perusal of the documents reveal that the settlement has not
been secured through coercion, threats, social boycotts, bribes, or
other dubious means,
viii) that the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings;
ix) that there is no objection from the private respondents in case present
FIR and consequent proceedings are quashed;
x) that in the given facts, the occurrence does not affect public peace or
tranquility, moral turpitude or harm the social and moral fabric of the
society or involve matters concerning public policy;
xi) that the rejection of compromise may lead to ill will and the
pendency of trial affects career and happiness;
xii) that there is nothing on the record to prima facie consider the accused
as an unscrupulous, incorrigible, and professional offender;
xiii) that the exercise of the inherent power for quashing the conviction,
sentence and all previous proceedings are justified to secure the ends
of justice.
6. With regard to quashing on the basis of compromise the Full
Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,
2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, held that the High Court has the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the compounding of non-compoundable
offence(s) and quash the proceedings, where the High Court is of the view that
the same was required to prevent the abuse of the process of law or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. This power of quashing is not confined to
matrimonial disputes alone.
3 of 5
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, observed that in
order to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court,
inherent power can be used by this Court to quash criminal proceedings in
which a compromise has been effected. The relevant portion of para 57 of the
said judgment reads thus: "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 of Criminal
Procedure. 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."
8. In view of afore-referred principles of law, and after perusing the
report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioners
and respondent Nos.2 and 3, this Court finds that quashing of FIR will accord a
quietus to all disputes between the parties and it is in the interest of both sides
to bury the hatchet and lead a peaceful life. Thus, no useful purpose would be
served in continuing the proceedings and in order to secure the ends of justice,
the criminal proceedings in the present case deserve to be quashed.
9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the FIR
No.50 dated 18.07.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 427, 380, 506, 325 and 34
IPC, Police Station Shahpurkandi, District Pathankot (Annexure P-1), along
4 of 5
with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed
on the basis of compromise dated 05.08.2025.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
07.11.2025
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
