[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-10568-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
324
CRM-M-10568-2026
RAVI SINGH AND OTHERS
....PETITIONERS
V/s
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
....RESPONDENTS
Date of decision: 23.03.2026
Date of Uploading: 23.03.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Sangha, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, J. ORAL
1. The present 2nd petition has been filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.523 dated 21.12.2024 under Sections
117(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS (Sections 115(2), 117(2), 238 of BNS added
later on), registered at Police Station City Barnala and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.12.2025
(Annexure P-3), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.
2. On 23.02.2026, the following order was passed:
"The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR and
all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom on the basis of a
compromise having been effected between the parties.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents/State.
At this juncture, Mr. R.S. Sangha, Advocate causes appearance on behalf
of respondents no.2 and 3 and has filed his vakalatnama.
1 of 5
The parties are directed to get their statements recorded qua the factum of
compromise in the following manner:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate
concerned on 27.2.2026 or any date thereafter as fixed by trial
Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording statements of the petitioners 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 petitioners, 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. 23.3.2026."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 20.03.2026 from
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala has been received, which is taken on
record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-
"i) There are nine accused persons arrayed in the FIR namely Ravi Singh,
Rajni @ Gagni, Gagandeep Singh @ Kalu, Manpreet Singh @Gaggu,
Sagar Singh, Deepak Singh @ Deepa Singh, Sanju Singh, Surjit Singh @
Kedi Singh and Mani Kumar @ Mani Singh.
ii) There is only one complainant and one victim arrayed in the FIR
namely Bunty Singh and Geeta Rani.
iii) As per the statement of Investigating Officer, none of the accused
person has been declared as proclaimed offender."
2 of 5
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 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.
5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case
the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-3).
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.
3 of 5
(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.
(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.
4 of 5
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.
(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.523 dated 21.12.2024
under Sections 117(2), 191(3) 190 of BNS (Sections 115(2), 117(2), 238 of BNS
added later on), registered at Police Station City Barnala and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 19.12.2025
(Annexure P-3), are, hereby, quashed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
23.03.2026
jatin
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
