[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudershan Singh Alias Sudarshan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 February, 2026
CRM-M-66095-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
186
CRM-M-66095-2025
SUDERSHAN SINGH ALIAS SUDARSHAN SINGH
....PETITIONER
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 26.02.2026
Date of Uploading: 26.02.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Arishdeep Mraad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG, Punjab.
Ms. Aashima Jindal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.0290 dated 30.11.2020 under Sections 279,
337, 338, 427 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bhikhi District Mansa and
all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR including challan/final
report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. dated 12.09.2025 on the basis of
settlement/agreement dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to
have been effected between the parties.
2 On 26.11.2025, the following order was passed:
"Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR bearing
No.290 dated 30.11.2020 registered under Sections 279, 337,
338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station
Bhikhi, District Mansa along with all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, including challan/final report dated
1 of 6
12.09.2025, on the basis of settlement/agreement dated
26.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
Counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the dispute in the
main case i.e. in FIR bearing No.290 dated 30.11.2020
impugned herein, has been resolved amicably and parties have
agreed to get the proceedings quashed.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf
of respondent No.1-State and prays for some time to file the
reply/status report.
Ms. Aashima Jindal, Advocate enters appearance and files
power of attorney on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and she
does not dispute the fact that the matter has been compromised
between the parties.
The power of attorney is taken on record. Registry is directed to
do the needful.
The affected parties are directed to appear before the learned
Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, for getting their respective
statements recorded with regard to the compromise on or
before 12.12.2025 subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000/- by
the petitioner(s) with the Red Cross Old Age Home, Account
No.50100286016319, IFSC Code: HDFC0004030, HDFC
Bank Sector-15, Panchkula. Thereupon, the concerned Court
shall submit a detailed report, containing the information on
the following points, along with copies of the statements to this
Court, on or before the adjourned date:-
I. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the
dispute/FIR;
II. Number of complainant/victim(s);
III. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party
to compromise & signed the same;
IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) 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;
V. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed
offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have
been initiated or pending adjudication;
VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine,
voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence;
VII. Any other aspect relevant to the present case. To come up
on 25.02.2026, awaiting report.
Reply by the respondent-State, if any, be filed on or before the
next date of hearing."
2 of 6
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 05.01.2026 from
Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Mansa, has been received, which is taken on
record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
Name of the reporting Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Judicial
Court
Magistrate 1st Class, Mansa
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
290 30.11.2020 Bhikhi 279, 337, 338, 417 of
IPC
1. Total number of persons One
found involved as accused Sukhdarshan Singh @
in the dispute/FIR Sudarshan Singh son of
Karamjit Singh, resident of
village Toor Banjara,
District Sangrur.
2. Number of Three
complainant/victim 1. Ravinder Kumar son of
Shiv Nath.
2. Amandeep Kumar son of
Vijay kumar.
3.Gurwinder Singh son of
Jagdev Singh.
3. Whether all the accused Yes.
and complainant/victims
are party to compromise
and signed the same.
4. In case, any affected person No. No affected person
(accused or complainant) is (accused or complainant is
left out or not arrayed as left out).
party in the quashing
petition before high Court,
detail whereof OR his/her
statement is still to be
3 of 6
recorded, in compliance to
the direction of this Court,
details of such person.
5. Whether any accused has No accused has been
been declared as a declared PO nor any
proclaimed offence/person proceeding against them
or any such proceedings have been initiated or
against him/her have been pending.
initiated or pending
adjudication.
6. Report of Court whether Yes, compromise between
compromise is genuine, the parties are genuine and
voluntary, and without any without any coercion or
coercion or undue undue influence.
influence.
7. Any other aspect relevant No.
to the present case.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 admits the factum of
parties having compromised and states that she has no objection in case the
FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioner is quashed.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the
FIR is quashed based upon the settlement/agreement (Annexure P-2).
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully
gone through the records of the case.
7. This Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt
with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to
quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh &
others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and
Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of
4 of 6
September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid
decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court is :
(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is
unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.
(b) However, wider the power greater the caution.
(c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it
can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise
between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and
predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.
(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society.
(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance
interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted
upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court
would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because
FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of
injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate
parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.
(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible
only after the evidence is collected after investigation and
chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise
cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.
(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are
of private in nature, High Court is required to consider
antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he
was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to
enter into a compromise.
The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same
as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the
above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 as well.
5 of 6
8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise
jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash the FIR as :-
(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility
amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial
justice.
(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.
(iii) The parties have compromised.
(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its
nature.
(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his
own volition
9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.0290 dated
30.11.2020 under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Bhikhi District Mansa and all subsequent proceedings arising out of
the said FIR including challan/final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.
dated 12.09.2025 on the basis of settlement/agreement dated 26.09.2025
(Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
26.02.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
