[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
255
CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.04.2026
Jagir Singh and others ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Angrej Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Dr. (Ms.) Savi Nagpal, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for seeking quashing of FIR
No.91 dated 13.08.2025 registered under Sections 118(2), 118(1), 117(2),
115(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police
Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise
dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
2. The facts of the present case, in brief, are that the FIR was
registered on the statement of the complainant, Manjit Singh, who stated that
his elder brother had expired about five years ago and his father had passed
away approximately 10-12 years earlier, while his mother, Channo Kaur,
was alive and residing separately. On 11.08.2025, at about 08:00 PM, the
complainant had gone on foot to the market at Bhindi Saidan to purchase
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
milk. While returning home, he was intercepted by Jagir Singh, Manga
Singh, Gurbaksh Singh, Manjot Singh and Seta Singh, all residents of the
same village and variously armed with sharp-edged weapons. It was alleged
that upon being accosted, one of the assailants raised an exhortation to catch
hold of him, whereupon he was overpowered and assaulted. The
complainant stated that multiple blows were inflicted upon him by the
assailants with their respective weapons, causing injuries on his head, arms,
waist, abdomen, thighs and leg. Upon his raising an alarm, local shopkeepers
and other persons gathered at the spot and his wife also reached there,
following which the assailants fled. The complainant was initially taken to
Civil Hospital, Lopoke and, in view of the seriousness of his condition, was
referred to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, but was ultimately admitted
to Hartej Hospital, Amritsar, where he remained under treatment. The
motive for the occurrence was stated to be prior enmity arising out of a
dispute involving the complainant's maternal aunt, on account of which the
accused persons collectively assaulted him.
3. However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties
have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition.
4. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 17.10.2025 and subsequent order
dated 13.01.2026 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.
5. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ajnala vide Memo No. 27 dated 13.02.2026.
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
S. No. Information required
Question Total number of persons found involved as accused in
I the dispute/FIR;
Answer As per the statement of IO, there are 05 persons i.e.
Jagir Singh, s/o, Labh Singh, Manga Singh, s/o, Shera
Singh @ Seta Singh, Gurbasa Singh @ Gurbaksh
Singh, s/o, Buta Singh, Manjot Singh, s/o. Shera Singh
@ Seta Singh and Shera Singh @ Seta Singh, s/o,
Labh Singh involved as accused in the dispute/FIR.
Question Number of complainant/victim(s);
II
Answer As per the statement of IO, there is only one
complainant/victim namely Manjit Singh, s/o, Kapoor
Singh, in the present FIR.
Question Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are
III party to compromise & signed the same;
Answer Yes, all the accused and complainant/victims are
party to the compromise and signed the same.
Question In case, any affected person (accused or complainant)
IV is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing
petition before High Court, detail whereof;
OR
His/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance
to the direction of this Court, details of such person;
Answer No, there is no any affected person (accused or
complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the
quashing petition before Hon'ble High Court.
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
Question Whether any accused has been declared as a
V proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings
against him/her have been initiated or pending
adjudication;
Answer As per the statement of IO, neither any accused has
been declared as a proclaimed offender/person nor
any such proceedings against him/her have been
initiated or pending adjudication.
Question Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine,
VI voluntary, and without any coercion or undue
influence;
Answer From the statement(s) suffered by the
complainant/victim, accused and IO, it appears that
the compromise effected between the parties, is
genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence.
Question Any other aspect relevant to the present case.
VII
Answer No, there is no other aspect is relevant to the present
case.
6. Short reply filed by way of affidavit dated 12.01.2026 on behalf
of respondent-State is already available on file and the same is taken on
record. Registry is directed to do the needful.
7. 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.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2
reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
consequential proceedings being quashed and affirmed during statement
before the trial Court.
9. The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section
482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus
State of Gujarat and another" (2017) 9 SCC 641'. Further, in the case of
Yogendra Yadav & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Another reported as
(2014) 9 SCC 653the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
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 prosecution would be waste of time and
energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace.
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
10. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues
amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of
the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of
judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction.
11. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case
as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation
of the powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023:-
i) The genesis of the occurrence lies in a personal and
private dispute between the parties arising out of inter se family
discord, which has now been amicably resolved. The
complainant no longer harbours any grievance against the
petitioners and thus, continuation of the criminal proceedings
would not subserve the ends of justice.
ii) Petitioner No. 1 is aged 52 years and prolonged criminal
proceedings or incarceration would gravely prejudice his
livelihood, disrupt the economic stability of his family and
result in irreparable harm to his standing in society.
iii) Petitioner No. 3 is aged 19 years is barely out of
adolescence and stands at the threshold of adulthood.
Petitioners No. 2 & 4 are aged 26 and 21 years respectively
and are young individuals at a formative stage of their lives,
with their future prospects, employment opportunities, and
social standing yet to be firmly established. Exposure to
criminal prosecution at this stage would have a lasting and
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
stigmatic impact on their careers and rehabilitation and may
irreversibly impair his chances of leading a constructive and
law-abiding life, thereby defeating the broader objective of
reformative justice.
iv) Petitioner No. 5 is aged 67 years and is entitled to a more
humane and compassionate consideration. Subjecting such a
person to continued criminal prosecution would cause undue
hardship and may seriously impair his health and well-being.
v) The FIR in question pertains to the year 2025 and the
proceedings are still at a nascent stage. 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 the society and bringing the criminal
proceedings to an end at this juncture would promote peace,
harmony and tranquillity between the parties.
vi) The offence(s) alleged, though not trivial, can neither be
characterised as heinous or of such gravity as to shock the
collective conscience of society, nor do they partake the nature
of offences that would shock the conscience of the Court.
vii) In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the
parties, the complainant is unlikely to support the prosecution
case; consequently, continuation of the proceedings would
serve no larger public interest and would merely result in an
avoidable wastage of valuable judicial time.
viii) In the totality of the circumstances, the continuation of
255 CRM-M-58410-2025 (O&M)
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.
12. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ajnala
and the principles laid down by the Apex Court on the subject, the instant
petition is allowed. FIR No.91 dated 13.08.2025 registered under Sections
118(2), 118(1), 117(2), 115(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar Rural
(Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom,
are hereby quashed qua the petitioner(s) in view of compromise dated
26.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
13. Petition is allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
