[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M-58969-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(237) CRM-M-58969-2022
Date of Decision: 21.04.2026
KULWINDER SINGH . . . Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. G.S. Nahel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing of FIR No. 145
dated 22.07.2021, under Sections 376-D IPC (lateron deleted) and Sections
376, 506 of of IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh,
District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived between the
parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
present FIR was initially registered against Lovepreet Singh and an
unknown person, and the petitioner was not named therein, with the primary
allegations being against co-accused Lovepreet Singh. During investigation,
the said co-accused Lovepreet Singh was declared innocent, and the
CRM-M-58969-2022
petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of his disclosure statement. It is
further submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the
allegations against the petitioner. Even otherwise, respondent No.2 has
stated on affidavit that she does not wish to pursue the present criminal
litigation, and has therefore voluntarily settled the matter with the petitioner.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the compromise deed annexed as
Annexure P-2. It is also submitted that, though the petitioner was initially
declared proclaimed offender in the matter, however, the said order of
proclamation was set aside, and the petitioner duly surrendered before the
learned trial Court and deposited the cost as imposed by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kapil Gupta Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
and another", 2022 (4) RCR (Crl.) 497, to contend that FIR containing
allegations similar to the present case can be quashed on the basis of
compromise. Further reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in
"Karan Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and another", 2021(1) Law Herald
149, to contend that once the parties have compromised the matter and
decided to live in peace, no useful purpose will be served in allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not controvert the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Heard.
6. This Court, vide order dated 25.04.2023, directed the parties to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements
with regard to the compromise.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 31.05.2023 has
CRM-M-58969-2022
been received from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sangrur. A perusal of the said report reveals that statements of the concerned
persons have been recorded in the present case, who have stated that the
matter has been settled between them and they have no objection in case the
FIR in question is quashed. The compromise effected between them is
genuine, without any undue influence and coercion.
8. There is a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
whereby, parameters governing the exercise of jurisdiction of Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure have been elucidated. In a celebrated
judgment cited as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SUPP (1) SCC
335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed different categories of cases
wherein, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
while observing that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined, sufficiently channelized, inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list or myriad kind of cases where such powers should
be exercised. The following principles have been culled out:-
"102 (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused;
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the
CRM-M-58969-2022
Code;
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. Reference can also be made to Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of
Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had observed that while exercising power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the High Court has to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction of accused is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case
would put him into great oppression and prejudice and injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing criminal case.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543, had
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.
11. 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
CRM-M-58969-2022
quashing is not confined to matrimonial disputes alone.
12. Trite to say that the inherent powers of this Court under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, a fluid and ever
evolving concept. Though, justice must be administered keeping in mind the
broad objectives of legislature, a restrictive construction of inherent powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may prevent the Courts from doing substantial
justice, which is the end goal of every legal system. Needless to say that this
power must ought to be exercised after careful circumspection, particularly
in the context of quashing proceedings, bearing in mind, the nature and
effect of the offence on the consciousness of the society; the seriousness of
the injury, if any; voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim; conduct of the parties and other relevant considerations.
13. In view of the afore-referred judgments and after perusing the
report of the trial Court regarding amicable settlement between the petitioner
and the complainant, this Court finds that quashing the 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.
14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No. 145
dated 22.07.2021, under Sections 376-D IPC (lateron deleted) and Sections
376, 506 of of IPC added lateron, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh,
District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s), on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-2), subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the
CRM-M-58969-2022
petitioner(s) in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within
a period of one month.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
April 21, 2026
Ritika
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
