1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing
of FIR No.28,
No. dated 13.04.2025, registered under Sections 109, 118(1),
115(2), 333, 140(3), 127(2), 191(3), 190 BNS and Sections 25, 27 of the
Arms Act, registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Batala, District
Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1)
P and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on
2. The co-ordinate
ordinate bench of tthis
his Court vide order dated
16.07.2025 had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa/Duty
Magistrate to get their statements recorded and the learned Magistrate was
GURPREET directed to send its
its report qua the genuineness of the compromise.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, pparties
arties have appeared before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Batala and got their statements recorded. On
the basis of the statements so recorded, District and Sessions
ons Judge,
Gurdaspur, has submitted report dated 29.09.2025 to the effect that the
compromise has been effected between the parties voluntarily and without
4. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2
have
ve not disputed the factum of compromise between the parties.
5. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to
continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR.
"Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab"2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 as
(I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in tthe
he Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
GURPREET to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M--30555-2025
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the
guiding factor in such cases wo
would be to secure :
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While
exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on
either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are
not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly,, for offences alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by Public Servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and pre-dominantly
dominantly civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
(V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as
to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 I.P.C. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against
the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest
its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
I.P.C. in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
authenticity of this document.
would be open to the High
h Court to examine as to whether
CRM-M--30555-2025
incorporation of Section 307 I.P.C. is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section
307I.P.C. For this purpose, it would be oopen
pen to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered
by the victim can generally be the guiding ffactor.
actor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to
whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak
bleak.. In the former case
it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash th
thee criminal
proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible
for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage,
the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settle
settlement
ment
between the parties is going to result in harmony between them
which may improve their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under
section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those casess where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because ooff the reason that at
this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet
has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at
infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
authenticity of this document.
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
CRM-M--30555-2025
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain
from exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in
such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the
case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether
the offence
ffence under Section 307 I.P.C. is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate
stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground
ound to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the
trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 I.P.C. and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of ssparing
paring a convict found guilty
of such a crime."
7. While considering the issue regarding quashing of the FIR
under Section 109 of BNS, 2023 (Section 307 of erstwhile IPC) on the basis
of compromise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the matter of "Statee of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan; 2019 AIR (SC) 1296 as follows:-
"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of
this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed
and held as under:
i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non
non-compoundable
compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transaction
transactionss or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M--30555-2025
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity
ravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences
under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption A
Act
ct or
the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;
iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would
fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not
against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the
Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot
be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code,
on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest
its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient eviden
evidence,
ce, which if
proved, would lead to framing the charge under section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons
eapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed
and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when
authenticity of this document.
the matter
ter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate
CRM-M--30555-2025
conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this
Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read
harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the
circumstances stated hereinabove;
nabove;
v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non
non-
compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not
have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise
t/compromise between the victim and the offender, the
High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the
accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complaina
complainant
nt to enter into a compromise
etc."
8. Keeping in view the above stated principles of law, now I
would advert to the facts of the present case and the pleadings of the parties.
9. In the present case, a dispute arose between both the parties due
to some misunderstanding, which now stands resolved and the matter has
been compromised with the intervention of respectables.. Apart from that,
both the sides had not only buried their hatchet and even, in view of the
compromise between the parties, there are minimal chances of the witnesses
coming forward to depose before the Court. In the light of the judicial
precedents referred to above, given the terms of compromise, placement of
parties, and other factors peculiar
peculiar to the case, the contents of the
compromise deed and its objectives point towards its acceptance.
10. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
continuation of the proceedings in the present case would be an abuse of the
authenticity of this document.
CRM-M--30555-2025
process of Court.
Court. As a consequence, the present petition is accepted and the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.
No.28, dated 13.04.2025, registered
under Sections 109, 118(1), 115(2), 333, 140(3), 127(2), 191(3), 190 BNS
and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, regis
registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke
Bangar, Batala, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P
P-1) and subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.05.2025
(Annexure P-2),
P are hereby ordered to be quashed.
11. Pending miscellaneous applic
application(s),
ation(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of, accordingly.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL)
11.03.202
.2026 JUDGE
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this document.
