[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Komal Dhir And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 2026

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                     CRM-M-62540-2025                      -1-

                     257          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                  CRM-M-62540-2025
                                                                  Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

                     Komal Dhir and others                                      ..... Petitioners

                                                     Versus

                     State of Punjab and others                                 .......Respondents

                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

                     Present:     Ms. Manpreet, Advocate for
                                  Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
                                  Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab.
                                  Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4.

                     Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR

No.73, dated 27.04.2022 registered under Sections 323, 451, 148 IPC at

Police Station Division 6, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar and

judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Principal Magistrate Juveniles

Justice Board, Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on

the basis of compromise dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-4).

2. The FIR in question was lodged 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 Annexure P-4. On the

basis of the compromise, the petitioners are 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 10.11.2025 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 of the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jalandhar, has sent report dated 16.01.2026. With the report, he has annexed

photocopy of joint statement of respondent No.2 to 4, namely, Meenu Dhir,

Nitish Dhir and Rishab Dhir and joint statement of the petitioners, namely,

Komal Dhir, Himanshu Verma and Ashwan Verma dated 02.01.2026 and

statement of ASI Kulvinder Singh recorded on 03.01.2026. On the basis of

the statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar has concluded in

its report that the compromise arrived between the parties is genuine,

voluntary and out of free will of the parties. It has been mentioned in the

report that there are only three accused in the FIR i.e. the present petitioners.

It is further mentioned in the report that the petitioners have not been

declared proclaimed offender in any other criminal case, but they are

involved in one FIR No.81 dated 08.06.2022, registered under Sections 323,

325, 34 IPC, at Police Station Divn No.6, Jalandhar.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the

FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present

petition is liable to be accepted.

6. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has also pleaded no

objection, if the present FIR is quashed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record

and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar.

8. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Bhartiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is

equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for

compounding of the offences under the BNS, 2023.

9. 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.

10. 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 a 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."

11. 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, in the nature of cases as prescribed 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 482 Cr.P.C.

12. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in

hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial

precedents and hence, FIR No.73, dated 27.04.2022 registered under

Sections 323, 451, 148 IPC at Police Station Division 6, District Police

Commissionerate Jalandhar and judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed by