[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 January, 2026
CRM-M-55405-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
290
CRM-M-55405-2025
GAGANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER
....PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 12.01.2026
Date of Uploading: 12.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Kanwar Arun Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Gursharan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 for quashing of FIR No.0180 dated 12.05.2025 under Sections 115(2),
118(1), 126(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station City
Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom on the basis of affidavit dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-2),
which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2. On 30.09.2025, the following order was passed:
"The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR
(Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom
on the basis of a compromise having been effected between the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all concerned are
parties to the present petition in terms of the dicta of the Division Bench
judgment of this Court passed in CRM-M No.48043 of 2023, titled Rakesh
Das v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 12.11.2024.
Notice of motion.
1 of 6
At this stage, Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG, Punjab has put in
appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State of Punjab and accepts
notice.
Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of Ms.
Pratibha Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 and filed her vakalatnama.
The same be taken on record.
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of
compromise in the following manner:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate
concerned on 09.10.2025 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statement of the petitioner as well
as of the complainant qua the factum of compromise. As and when any
such appearance is made, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall do the
needful for recording the statements of the parties qua the factum of the
compromise. It shall be open to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate to either
record the statements of the parties by physical process or by video
conferencing as deemed appropriate by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(ii) In case the statement is to be recorded by way of video conferencing,
the parties concerned shall be duly identified through video conferencing
by their respective counsel, subject to the satisfaction of the Presiding
Officer.
(iii) The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate may also choose to get the
statements of the parties recorded through some Commissioner, appointed
by the Court who would be some Advocate having sufficient standing at
the Bar. In case the statement is recorded through some Commissioner,
such Commissioner/Advocate shall furnish an affidavit after recording
statements to the effect that the parties had appeared before him/her and
he/she had recorded their statements as per law and that the said parties
had been duly identified by their respective counsel. This shall be subject
to satisfaction of trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
After recording the statements of all the affected parties in either of the
aforesaid manner, the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall submit its report
on the basis of the statements so recorded as to whether all the affected
parties have entered into a compromise and as to whether the compromise
in question is found to be a valid compromise and has been effected
without there being any kind of influence or coercion.
The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate shall also report as regards the
following facts after seeking information from Investigating Officer,
concerned:
(i) Whether there is any other accused other than the petitioner, arrayed
in this petition?
(ii) Whether there is any other complainant or affected/ aggrieved party
other than the respondents, arrayed in the petition?
(iii) Whether any accused has been declared Proclaimed Offender?
The report be submitted before this Court before the next date of hearing
i.e. 06.11.2025.
The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of ₹20,000/- as costs with the
High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund, Bank details whereof reads thus:
Account No.65018692589;
IFSC Code: SBIN0050306;
Branch Code: 50306;
Bank: State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh
Payment of costs and production of receipt thereof shall be a condition
precedent for recording of statements in the manner directed for
hereinabove."
2 of 6
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 28.10.2025 from
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar has been received, which is taken
on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"It is submitted that on 09.10.2025, complainant namely Aishveer Singh
Toor son of Harpinder Dass resident of House No. 6153, Sunny Enclave,
Sector 125, Kharar, District SAS Nagar appeared in the court and his
statement was recorded regarding compromise. He suffered a statement
that he has compromised the matter with accused Gagandeep Singh son of
Paramjit Singh and Harpreet Kaur wife of Gagandeep Singh both
residents of House No. 6343, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Kharar, District
SAS Nagar in FIR no. 180 dated 12.05.2025 Under Sections 115(2),
118(1), 126(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS, Police Station City Kharar. That
there is no other accused in this case. That he has no objection if the
present FIR against accused Gagandeep Singh and Harpreet Kaur is
quashed by Hon'ble High Court. That the present compromise has taken
place with the free consent and without any pressure. That he is the only
affected/aggrieved party in this case. That neither of the accused has been
deeclared proclaimed offender.
Thereafter, accused Gagandeep Singh and Harpreet Kaur also suffered
their joint statement that they have compromised the matter with
complainant Aishveer Singh Toor and they admitted the statement of
complainant to be correct. That the compromise has been entered into
voluntarily, without any inducement, threat, pressure or coercion. That
there is no other accused in the present FIR. That Aishveer Singh Toor is
the only complainant or affected/aggrieved party in this case. That they
have never been declared proclaimed offender.
Thereafter on 14.10.2025, Investigating Officer HC Ramanpreet Singh,
No. 1142/SAS Nagar, Police Post Sunny Enclave, PS City Kharar
appeared and got his statement recorded. He has stated that he is IO of
the present case and this case was registered against accused Gagandeep
Singh and Harpreet Kaur. That only one complainant namely Aishveer
Singh Toor is involved in this case and no other criminal case is pending
against the accused persons. That the parties are not involved or declared
as proclaimed offender in any other criminal case.
It is, accordingly, submitted on the basis of statement given by
Investigating Officer that there is no other accused other than the
petitioners namely Gagandeep Singh and Harpreet Kaur; there is no other
complainant or affected/aggrieved party other than the respondents and
neither of the accused has been declared as proclaimed offender. Further,
complying with the order, petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/-
as costs with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund and copy of receipt in
this regard is on record. It is also submitted that compromise is genuine,
voluntary and without coercion or undue influence."
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 admits the fact of parties
having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and
all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.
3 of 6
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR is quashed based upon the affidavit (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
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.
4 of 6
(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.
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.
5 of 6
(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.0180 dated
12.05.2025 under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, registered
at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of affidavit dated 01.08.2025
(Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
12.01.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
