Prince Baggan And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 3983 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prince Baggan And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2026

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                      AT CHANDIGARH

           260
                                                         CRM-M-1202
                                                                  1202-2026(O&M)
                                                         Date of decision: 30.04.2026

           Prince Baggan and others                                              ...Petitioner(s)

                                                     VERSUS
           State of Punjab and another                                        ...Respondent(s)

           CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
           Present :-          Mr. Akash Rana, Advocate for
                               Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

                               Dr. (Ms.) SaviNagpal, AAG, Punjab
                                                          Punjab.

                               Mr. R.D. Dahiya, Advocate for
                               Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate for respondentNo.2.

                               *****

           VINOD S. BHARDWAJ,
                    BHARDWAJ J. (Oral)

Prayer in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Section

528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for seeking quashing of

FIR No.26 dated 09.04.2024 registered under Section Sections 323, 452, 148, 149, 427

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Daresi, District Police

Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana along with all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated

11.06.2025 (Annexure P-3).

2. The he aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Parvinder

Singh son of Pritam Chand, resident of House No.60/31 K 6969, Maan Colony,

Street No.01, Police Station Daba, Ludhiana, relevant part of which is extracted

as under:-

"On On 08-04-2024, at about 6:15 PM, M, 1 was getting my hair cut at Roxy Salon located in front of my office. At that time, two

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -2-

unknown boys were sitting inside the salon. Two boys were working there, one named Sadiq and the other Sameer. Sadiq was cutting my hair when those two unknown boys started quarrelling with Sameer. Both of them began beating Sameer. I tried to stop them, but they did not listen, so I left the salon and went to my office across the street. At about 6:30 PM, those two boys, who were fighting inside the salon, came to my office along with about 11-12 other unknown boys carrying sharp-edged weapons and long knives (datar). All of them entered my office and started beating me. They had sharp weapons in their hands. They assaulted me and also damaged the printer, computer, telephone, LCD, wall clock, and chairs inside my office. They even struck the doors of the rooms with their weapons. One of the boys attacked the left side of my chest with a sharp weapon, causing an injury. Some of them also hit me on my head and body with chairs and dragged me against the wall of the office. They broke the LCD fixed on the wall and snatched away my gold chain weighing about 2½ tolas from my neck. When I raised an alarm, my friend Sukhwinder Singh, son of Darshan Singh, resident of Village Daba, Ludhiana, along with my worker Jasvir Singh and security guard Rajinder Bahadur, came inside and tried to rescue me. At that time, I also managed to escape from my office to save my life. Afterwards, all those unknown persons fled from the spot along with their sharp weapons on motorcycles. Later, we checked the CCTV recordings of the office and service center. From the footage, we identified two of the attackers: Prince, who used to work at Roxy Salon earlier and is a resident of Ghati Balmik Nagar. Mohan Kanojia, who works at a car washing center in Sundar Nagar and lives there. It was Prince who attacked my chest with a sharp weapon. The names of the other approximately 12 unknown persons can be provided by these two boys. They all came on about 4-5 motorcycles, including one Bullet and the rest, Splendor motorcycles. Regarding the assault, I got my medical examination done at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Today, I was going to the police station to inform you, but I met you near Bikaner

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -3-

Sweet Shop on the way. You have written down my statement, which I have given correctly. Necessary legal action should be taken against the above-mentioned persons and the 12 unknown boys who accompanied them."

3. However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties

have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition. The parties

were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate

vide order dated 14.01.2026 of this Court, to get their statements recorded

regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this

regard was called for.

4. Pursuant to the said order, the cost has been deposited, and

receipts thereof are taken on record. A report has also been received from the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, vide Memo No.147 dated

06.03.2026. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-

"Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, as have arisen from the statements of the parties, the following point-wise report is submitted as desired please:

1. That as per statement of Investigation Officer, there are 12 (twelve) accused persons namely (1) Prince Baggan, (2) Aditya Baggan, (3) Yuvianshu Baggan, (4) Moksh@ Tanish, (5) Nikhil, (6) Amritpal Singh, (7) Sagar @ Mohit, (8) Mohan, (9) Virochan Baggan @ Binny Viraj, (10) Jai Kush Baggan alias Kush, (11) Kartik Baggan and (12) Mohit son of Late Goldy and out of which two accused persons namely Kartik Baggan and Mohit son of Late Goldy have died, in the present FIR/police report.

2. That as per statement of Investigation Officer, there is only complainant namely Parvinder Singh in the present case/FIR.

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -4-

3. That as per statement of Investigation Officer, all the accused persons (except those died) and complainant are party to compromise and signed the same.

4. That as per statement of Investigation Officer, none of the affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or arrayed as party in the quashing petition before Hon'ble High Court. In the present case/FIR two accused persons namely Kartik Baggan and Mohit have already died.

5. That as per statement of Investigation Officer, none of the accused person has been declared proclaimed offender/person in the present case/FIR.

6. The compromise, which has been entered into by the parties in this case, is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence."

5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the factum of the

compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the

resolution of the dispute amongst the parties.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the settlement and

his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being

quashed.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav&

Others v. State of Jharkhand & Another reported as (2014) 9 SCC 653 has

held that although non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C.

cannot be formally compounded, the High Court can still quash such criminal

proceedings in appropriate cases by exercising its inherent powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the parties have genuinely and voluntarily settled their

dispute. The Court has held that this power must be exercised on a case-to-case

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -5-

basis. Serious and heinous offences affecting society at large, such as rape or

murder, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, where the

dispute is purely personal, does not affect public peace, the victim has no

objection, and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the

High Court may quash the case to secure the ends of justice and avoid

unnecessary waste of judicial time. The relevant extract thereof reads as thus :

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -6-

prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

8. In the matter of BS Joshi v State of Haryana, 2003 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 888, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that for the purpose of

securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise in non

compoundable offence is permissible.

9. On consideration of the above, the following relevant factors

emerge for supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section

528 of BNSS, 2023:-

(i)The dispute arises from a violent altercation that began inside a salon between the accused and a worker, which later escalated into a planned attack on the complainant at his office. The accused, along with others, assaulted the complainant with weapons, caused injuries, damaged property, and committed robbery by snatching his gold chain. The same is an isolated and personal incident, confined to the parties alone and does not disclose any element of public interest or societal impact warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.

(ii) Petitioners 6, 9 and 10 are middle-aged persons, and continuation of criminal proceedings would hamper their prospects and affect the discharge of their family and social obligations.

(iii)Petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are young individuals and continued prosecution is likely to cause disproportionate prejudice on their prospects, livelihood and chances of social rehabilitation.

(iv)Significantly, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a compromise of their own free will, with the intervention of respectable members of society.

(v)In view of the compromise so arrived at, the likelihood of the complainant supporting the prosecution case is remote, and the

260 CRM-M-1202-2026(O&M) -7-

probability of securing a conviction is also bleak.

(vi)The continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no larger public purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment of the parties and futile expenditure of valuable judicial time.

(vii)The offences alleged cannot be characterized as heinous or of such gravity as to shock the conscience of society at large or of this Court.

(viii)In the totality of the circumstances, the continuation of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom would amount to an abuse of the process of law and the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the same in view of the compromise effected between the parties."

10. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Ludhiana and having regard to the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on the subject, the instant petition is allowed. The FIR No.26

dated 09.04.2024 registered under Sections 323, 452, 148, 149, 427 and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Daresi, District Police

Commissionerate Ludhiana, District Ludhiana along with all consequential

proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed in view of the compromise

deed dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure P-3).

11. Petition is allowed in the above terms.

           30.04.2026                                               (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
           Sumit Gusain                                                    JUDGE
                               Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
                               Whether reportable        : Yes/No