CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 101+201 CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Latti .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUJA CHOPRA Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsy, Advocate, for Mr. A.K. Kalsy, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate, for the complainant. ... PUJA CHOPRA , J. (Oral) CRM-33629-2026 Prayer in the present application is for impleading the legal representative of the deceased-complainant Asha Rani in the array of parties in CRR-2656-2010. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the present application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The LR of deceased complainant-Asha Rani is impleaded as respondent No.2 for the purpose of pursuing the instant criminal revision petition, subject to all just exceptions. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record. Office to tag the same at an appropriate place in the case file. CRM-30098-2026 in/and CRR-2656-2010 The present criminal revision petition arises from judgments passed by learned JMIC, Amritsar and learned Additional Sessions Judge, RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 2 (Fast Track Court), Amritsar, whereby the accused/petitioner (Gurpreet Singh @ Latti) was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days; and was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal filed by petitioner Gurpreet Singh @ Latti was also dismissed as aforesaid. 2. Briefly, as per the case of prosecution, the petitioner/accused was neighbourer of complainant Asha Rani and on 05.09.2000, when he was standing outside his house on the platform by holding a dagger in his hand who saw the complainant and all of a sudden attacked her with his dagger and gave a blow on the lower left side of her abdomen. Then the complainant immediately reacted that what is her fault and at this instance accused gave second blow of his dagger which landed on the right elbow of the complainant and she fell down and the accused Gurpreet Singh @ Latti started saying that she will not be spared and he immediately gave third blow with his dagger which landed on her right pant and thereafter, the accused tried to gave fourth blow in the stomach of the complainant, but she advanced the bag which she was holding in her hands and the fourth blow landed on the bag, due to that reason the complainant escaped and in the meantime, she raised hue and cry and after hearing this, her brother Ram Parkash S/o Harbans Lal and Ashwani Kumar S/o Raj, both residents of Gurbax Nagar, reached at the place of RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 3 occurrence, who witnessed the entire occurrence and the accused after seeing all these persons at the spot ran away from the place of occurrence with his aforementioned weapon and these persons arranged for a vehicle and Ashwani Kumar led the complainant/injured to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar where she was treated for her injuries. 3. The injuries suffered by complainant Asha Rani were three in number allegedly caused with sharp edged weapon. Out of the three injuries, injury number 2 was declared grievous in nature being fracture of right forearm whereas injuries No.1 and 3 were declared as simple. Accordingly, petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Sections 326 and 324 IPC as aforesaid. 4. During the pendency of the present revision petition, an application has been moved for impleadment of LR of complainant Asha Rani, who is stated to have expired on 16.07.2023, along with application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. (Section 359 BNSS) for compounding the offences with permission of this Court. 5. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent No.2, and states that he has no objection if the matter is laid to rest considering that the occurrence pertains to the year 2000 and the parties are neighbourers. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also does not dispute the correctness or veracity of compromise and supports the compromise deed dated 01.05.2026 which has been placed on record as Annexure A-1. The terms of compromise are reproduced hereunder: “2. That now with the intervention of the respectables compromise has been arrived at between RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 4 both the parties qua the above-mentioned case. Both the parties have no grudge against each other. 3. That in terms of this compromise party no. 1 i.e. Inder Mohan being the Legal Representative of complainant Asha Rani does not want to pursue any legal proceeding against the party no. 2 i.e. Gurpreet Singh alias Latti. 4. That if this Hon'ble Court acquits party no. 2 i.e. Gurpreet Singh alias Latti then the above- mentioned FIR shall be quashed / dismissed and qua the same party no. 1 i.e. Inder Mohan shall have no objection. That party no. 1 i.e. Inder Mohan shall be under an obligation to make statement before the Lower Courts or this Hon'ble Court or before the police or wherever necessity arises in favor of party no. 2 i.e. Gurpreet Singh alias Latti. 5. That the both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own free will and without any coercion. Both the parties shall abide by the same.” The said compromise is duly signed by petitioner and respondent No.2 (LR of Late Asha Rani) and also by two witnesses, namely, Gurmej Singh and Nirmal Kaur. 7. It is a case of single accused and single victim, and the said criminal revision pertains to the year 2010. The revision petition was admitted by this Court for hearing on 27.09.2010, however, the sentence of petitioner-Gurpreet Singh @ Latti was suspended vide said order dated 27.09.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner has remained on bail and no misuse or untoward incident on part of petitioner/accused has been pointed out by learned State counsel. 8. Ordinarily this Court would have been reluctant to accept the request of petitioner for compounding the offences in view of nature of RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 5 injury purely on basis of the compromise (supra). However, it is brought to notice of this Court that the investigation in the case was also not done properly, as is evident from perusal of the judgments passed by learned trial Court and learned First Appellate Court, who have noted in their respective judgments that the Investigating Officer has not stepped into the witness box, no MLR of complainant Asha Rani has been proved, the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner accused and seizure memo were also not produced/proved along with other documents like site plan of alleged place of occurrence, memos prepared during the course of investigation, disclosure statement allegedly suffered by accused, memo of alleged recovery of dagger as well as rough sketch of the dagger etc. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay of around 22 hours in lodging the FIR in question, since as per the same the occurrence took place at about 4:25 PM on 05.09.2000, whereas DDR was recorded at 2:35 PM on 06.09.2000. Though there are arguable issues, however, the parties chose not to address arguments on merits and insisted on disposal of case on the basis of compromise (supra). 9. The next question that arises is whether the compromise can be accepted and the parties can be allowed to compound the offence at this stage. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already served protracted trial and further legal proceedings in form of appeal and revision. Further, respondent No.2 has compromised the matter without any monetary interest solely on account of them being neighbourers and them having buried the hatchet. RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 6 11. It is well settled that the offences which are non- compoundable in nature can be permitted to be compromised in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In cases of compoundable offences, with or without permission of Court, Section 320(6) Cr.PC. is relevant, which reads as under: “6. A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.” 12. This Court is mindful that the present petition is a revision petition. However, the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by this Court, at this stage. In ‘Sube Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and another’, 2013(4)RCR (Criminal) 102, the questions which arose before Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court were as under: “10. From the above-reproduced reference order, the following two questions arise for determination by the larger Bench :- (1) Whether the power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is controlled by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code or it can be invoked in an appropriate case even if the offences are not compoundable in nature? (2) Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial court though the matter is sub judice before the appellate court?” 12.1 The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court then proceeded to answer question No.1 as under: RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 7 “11. The extent and sweep of inherent power exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise between the offender and the victim of crime in a case which is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., has since been considered in extenso and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012)4 RCR (Criminal) 543, laying down that the compounding of offence and quashing of criminal proceedings are two separate things and not interchangeable and that the two powers are distinct and different although ultimate consequence may be the same. It has been authoritatively ruled that where the offender and victim have settled their dispute, the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is competent to quash criminal proceedings even relating to the non- compoundable offences though such a power need to be invoked sparingly and not when the offences are heinous, serious, of mental depravity or like murder. rape, dacoity etc. The pronouncement thus says:- "52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent power by the High Court would entirely depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither permissible nor proper for the court to provide a straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible guidelines can also be provided. 53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 8 criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 54. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 9 the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed." 12. The decision in Gian Singh's case (supra) also approves the view taken by a five-Judge Bench of this Court in “Kulwinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052.” 12.2 On question No.2, Hon’ble Division Bench has held as under: “16. As regards the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge whether the inherent power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties can be invoked even if the accused has been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, we find that in “Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 910: (2008)5 SCC 794”, the unfortunate matrimonial dispute was settled after the appellant (husband) had been convicted under Section 498A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and his appeal was pending before the first appellate court. The Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice observing that "continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law" and also by invoking its power under Article 142 of the RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 10 Constitution. Since the High Court does not possess any power akin to the one under Article 142 of the Constitution, the cited decision cannot be construed to have vested the High Court with such like unparallel power. 17. The magnitude of inherent jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code with a view to prevent the abuse of law or to secure the ends of justice, however, is wide enough to include its power to quash the proceedings in relation to not only the non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code but such a power, in our considered view, is exercisable at any stage save that there is no express bar and invoking of such power is fully justified on facts and circumstances of the case.” 12.3 The Hon’ble Division Bench allowed the prayer of petitioner therein to compound the offences in pending criminal appeal arising out of judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, and it was held: “Since there is no statutory embargo against invoking of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code after conviction of an accused by the trial Court and during pendency of appeal against such conviction, it appears to be a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction and strike down the proceedings subject to certain safeguards.” Resultanly, appeal was rendered infructous and was directed to be so declared by First Appellate Court therein. 13. At this stage, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court today which shows that the petitioner has undergone custody period of 02 months and 20 days and no other case is pending against him. RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2656-2010 (O&M) 11 14. In ‘Shakuntla Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 1 SCC 63’ the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of consensual justice and reconciliation, observing that courts should, where circumstances permit, facilitate settlement rather than perpetuate bitterness through prolonged litigation. The Court aptly observed that “the finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.” Such settlement reflects the triumph of the “finer human spirit over its baser tendency for conflict”. 15. Thus, in view of the evidence on record or rather lack of it, and in view of compromise between parties, the petition is allowed and petitioner is acquitted of all charges. 16. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (PUJA CHOPRA) 26.08.2026 JUDGE Rajan/Jasmine Kaur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJAN 2026.08.31 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document