[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 January, 2026
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
327
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.01.2026
Mohinder Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. A. P. S. Rehan, Advocate
for the petitioners. (Through VC)
Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sandeep Godara, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for quashing
of FIR No.54, dated 13.10.2019 registered under Sections 307, 336, 506 and
120-B of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act (Section 307 IPC dropped
during investigation), at Police Station City Tallewal, District Barnala
including the judgment of conviction dated 19.10.2024, whereby petitioner
No. 1 had been convicted for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 336 and 506 of IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and petitioner
No. 2 Bhagwan Singh had been convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act, along with all consequential
1 of 5
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M) -2-
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 02.06.2025
(Annexure P-4) arrived at between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties
by making amicable settlement have resolved their inter se dispute and
therefore, the FIR in question as well as the judgment of conviction dated
19.10.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, along with all the subsequent
proceedings having emanated therefrom, may be quashed.
3. This Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 had given directions to
the parties to appear before the Illaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate for
recording of their statements qua genuineness/correctness of the compromise
and that the compromise was not the result of any fraud or misappropriation.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barnala has sent a report dated 21.08.2025 to this Court along with the
statements of respondent No.2/complainant as well as of the petitioners,
recorded on 19.08.2025. The statement of the Investigation Officer ASI
Jasmail Singh, recorded on 07.08.2025, is also attached with the report.
5. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned
Magistrate that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of
free will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the
report that apart from the petitioners, there is no other accused in the FIR and
that the present petitioners have not been declared proclaimed persons in this
case.
6. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties.
7. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow
compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution
2 of 5
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M) -3-
under Section 528 of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.) where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of
process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this regard,
reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder
Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is
equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can
certainly be exercised in cases where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High
Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of
criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the
criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the
High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.
Reference in this context can be made to Hon'ble Apex Court judgments cited
as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543
and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6)
SCC 466. Reference can also be made to another judgment rendered in
Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Crl. L.R. (SC) 1527,
wherein, it was observed that the powers under Article 142 or under Section
482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal
is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that
an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted
his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an Appellate Court.
3 of 5
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M) -4-
The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is
sine-qua-non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete
justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all
legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise
would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the
accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a
settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its
bona fide. It was also observed that the purpose of these extra-ordinary
powers was not to incentivize any hollow-hearted agreements between the
accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine
settlement(s).
8. Reliance can also be placed upon Sube Singh and another vs.
State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, wherein a
Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the
parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and
harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can
compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the
appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would be rendered
infructuous. Reference can also be made to the judgment rendered in
K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 184, whereby, on the basis of the compromise entered into
between the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the accused was
acquitted of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the
4 of 5
CRM-M-36555-2025 (O&M) -5-
Negotiable Instruments Act. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In view of the proposition of law as settled in the aforementioned
cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse
process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which
squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents
and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the
FIR in question as well as the aforesaid judgment of conviction and quantum
of sentence as imposed upon the petitioners would be securing the ends of
justice.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.54, dated
13.10.2019 registered under Sections 307, 336, 506 and 120-B of IPC and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act (Section 307 IPC dropped during
investigation), at Police Station City Tallewal, District Barnala along with all
the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of
conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 19.10.2024, passed
by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala, are
ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise
entered into between them. If any appeal is pending before the learned
appellate Court, the same shall be disposed of accordingly.
11. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms
and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned
Judicial Magistrate.
19.01.2026 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
