[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravel Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
CRM-M-69713-2025 -1-
272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-69713-2025
Date of decision: 27.01.2026
RAVEL SINGH AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. S.K.Choudhary, Advocate (through video conferencing)
for the petitioners.
Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
****
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.0243
dated 05.12.2021 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC,
at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 20.11.2025 (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 Annexures 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 12.12.2025 directed the parties to
1 of 5
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 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pathankot has sent the report dated 07.01.2026. With the report, she has
annexed the original statement of complainant/respondent No.2, namely,
Jagdish Kumar and the joint statement of accused/petitioners, Ravel Singh,
Dilbagh singh and Bodh Raj dated 24.12.2025 and the statement of ASI
Baldev Singh dated 03.01.2026. On the basis of the statements, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pathankot 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 total 03 accused persons. 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, Pathankot .
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
2 of 5
justice. Section 359 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is equally
relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of
the offences 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
3 of 5
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 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
4 of 5
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 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.0243 dated 05.12.2021 registered under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot 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.
27.01.2026 (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
