[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 May, 2026
272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.23808 of 2026
Date of decision: 22.05.2026
Vinay Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present :- Mr. Balraj Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surinderjit S. Nahar, AAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Ajay Singh Pundhir, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of
FIR No.87 dated 14.07.2024 registered under Sections 308(4) and 351(3) of
BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 387 and 506 IPC) at Police Station
Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure P-1), with all the subsequent
proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise dated 24.04.2026
(Annexure P-2).
2. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
3. Vide order dated 30.04.2026, parties were directed to appear
authenticity of this order/judgment
before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court and report with regard to the
genuineness of the compromise was called for.
4. The report dated 16.05.2026 has been received from learned
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, stating that the parties have entered
into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion
or undue influence.
5. Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others vs.
State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, has held:-
"29. The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the
Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this
Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be
limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has
the wide power to quash the proceedings even in
noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar
under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the
abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.
30. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of
process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list
nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to
invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no
limits. However, the High Court will exercise it
sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The
exercise of power has to be with circumspection and
restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary
effective instrument to maintain and control social
authenticity of this order/judgment
order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in
achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality
in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a
compromise between two warring groups, therefore,
should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a
Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the
same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful
composition of the society or would promote savagery."
6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10) SCC 303, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing criminal
proceedings or FIRs even in respect of non-compoundable offences if the
dispute between the parties is essentially private and personal in nature and
the compromise arrived at between them is genuine. It was further held that
such power is to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. However, the Court clarified that heinous
and serious offences having grave impact on society, such as murder, rape,
dacoity and offences under special statutes, ordinarily should not be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise matters having
overwhelmingly civil flavour may appropriately be quashed if between the
parties. The Supreme Court further observed that criminal cases arising out
of matrimonial disputes, family disputes, commercial transactions and
similar continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
7. In the present case also, this Court is of the considered view
that the FIR in question deserves to be quashed as continuation of the
criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose in view of the
authenticity of this order/judgment
compromise effected between the parties. The compromise arrived at
between the parties has been found to be genuine, voluntary and without
any coercion or undue influence. The dispute appears to be personal in
nature and does not involve any heinous offence having serious impact
upon society at large. Since the parties have resolved their disputes
amicably and do not wish to pursue the matter any further, the possibility
of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Therefore, in order to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law, this
Court deems it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing
the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
8. In view of above, FIR No.87 dated 14.07.2024 registered under
Sections 308(4) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding Sections 387 and
506 IPC) at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda (Annexure
P-1), with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed qua
the petitioner, on the basis of compromise dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P-2).
9. The present petition is hereby allowed.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
