[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
285 CRM-M-61476-2025 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 13.01.2026.
Gurpreet Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
----
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Nikhil Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR
No.163, dated 20.05.2025, under Sections 118(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023,
registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab along with all
consequential proceedings/inquiries/reports arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 and
the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally
the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which
is apparent from the affidavit/compromise, annexed as Annexure P-2. On the
basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of
this Court by 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
along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in
the interest of justice.
1 of 5
CRM-M-61476-2025 (O&M) -2-
3. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2025 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 to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali, has sent the report dated 15.12.2025 to this
Court. With the report, he has annexed the photocopy of joint statement of
petitioners namely Gupreet Singh, Sandeep Singh, Sant Singh recorded on
03.12.2025, statement complainant/respondent No.2 namely Jatinder Singh
recorded on 04.12.2025 and statement of ASI Kamaljit Singh recorded on
04.12.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kharar, has concluded in the report that the compromise effected
between the parties is voluntarily and without any coercion or undue
influence. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI
Kamaljit Singh, there are only three accused in the present case and they are
not declared as proclaimed offenders in this case at this stage. It has further
been mentioned that there is no other criminal case registered or pending
against the petitioners, namely, Gurpreet Singh, Sandeep Singh and Sant
Singh apart from the present case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S.
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
2 of 5
CRM-M-61476-2025 (O&M) -3-
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is
equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for
compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7. 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.
8. 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
3 of 5
CRM-M-61476-2025 (O&M) -4-
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 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."
4 of 5
CRM-M-61476-2025 (O&M) -5-
9. 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, 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 case would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section
528 of B.N.S.S.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR
No.163, dated 20.05.2025, under Sections 118(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023,
registered at Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab along with all
consequential proceedings/inquiries/reports arising therefrom are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).
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.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE
13.01.2026
jitender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
