[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naveen Kumar Prashar And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-24506-2025 -1-
289 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24506-2025
Date of decision: 12.01.2026
NAVEEN KUMAR PRASHAR AND ANR. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Mohit Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Yadwinder Singh, Advocate (through video conferencing)
for respondent No.2.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.037,
dated 09.03.2022 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, at Police Station
City Gurdaspur and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise dated 02.05.2025, Annexure P-2.
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-2. 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 15.09.2025 directed the parties to appear
before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as
1 of 5
contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also
directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur
has sent report dated 18.10.2025. With the report, she has annexed the original
statements of respondent No.2/complainant Harvinder Pal Singh and the
accused/petitioners, namely, Naveen Kumar and Pradeep Singh dated 24.09.2025
and statement of ASI Kuldeep Singh dated 25.09.2025. On the basis of the
statements, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gursdaspur has concluded in its
report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or
undue influence. It has been mentioned in the report that there are 2 accused in
the present case. It is further mentioned in the report that the petitioners neither
as declared proclaimed offender, nor they are involved in any other case.
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 respondent No.2 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur.
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
2 of 5
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
3 of 5
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
4 of 5
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.037, dated 09.03.2022 registered under Sections 420 and 406 of
IPC, at Police Station City Gurdaspur and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise
(Annexure P-2).
13. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and
conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court
below. Petition stands allowed.
12.01.2026 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
