[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Singh @ Prabhu Halwai And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 May, 2026
CRM-M-24009-2026 (O&M) 1
212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24009-2026 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 22.05.2026
RAJWINDER SINGH @ PRABHU HALWAI AND ANR
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Surinderjit S. Nahar, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Satish Kumar Rana, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.
MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. (Section 482
Cr.P.C) for quashing of the F.I.R No. 59 dated 18.03.2026, under Sections
125, 333, and 351(3) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 336/337/338, 452
and 506 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, got
registered at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and all
the subsequent proceedings arising there from, on account of Panchayati
Compromise dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-2).
2. Reply by way of an affidavit of Iqbal Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Jaitu, has been filed which is taken
on record.
3. During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
4. Vide order dated 30.04.2026, parties were directed to appear
before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the
genuineness of the compromise was called for.
5. The report dated 16.05.2026 has been received from Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jaitu, stating that the parties have entered
into a compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or
undue influence.
6. 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 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."
7. In 'Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(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 between the parties. The Supreme Court
further observed that criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes,
family disputes, commercial transactions and similar matters having
overwhelmingly civil flavour may appropriately be quashed if continuation
of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.
8. 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 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 petitioners are 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.
9. In view of above, F.I.R No. 59 dated 18.03.2026, under Sections
125, 333, and 351(3) of BNS (corresponding to Sections 336/337/338, 452
and 506 of IPC) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, got
registered at Police Station Jaito, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and all
the subsequent proceedings arising there from, is quashed qua the
petitioners, on the basis of Panchayati Compromise dated 17.04.2026
(Annexure P-2).
10. The present petition is hereby allowed.
11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
22.05.2026 JUDGE
himanshu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
