CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 272 CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Varinder Singh @ Sonu ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Roshandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2(i) to (iii) and 3. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 18.01.2012, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur in case arising out of FIR No. 56 dated 19.05.2010, registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, whereby the appellant was held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 341 and 34 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of 03 years with default clauses of fine. 2. During the pendency of the present appeal, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and vide order dated 06.05.2026, the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court for recording of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) -2- their statements qua genuineness/correctness of the compromise and that the compromise was not the result of any fraud or misappropriation. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur has sent a report dated 06.06.2026 to this Court along with the statements of respondents No. 2(i) to (iii) and 3 as well as of the appellant. 4. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free Will and without any pressure or coercion. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that keeping in view the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, which has been found to be genuine and valid, the present appeal may be allowed, thereby setting aside the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2(i) to (iii) and 3 has submitted that he has no objection, if the present appeal is allowed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between him and the appellant. 7. Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. 8. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 9. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which is pari materia with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) -3- 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon’ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. Reference can also be made to another judgment rendered in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Crl. L.R. (SC) 1527, wherein, it was observed that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an Appellate Court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) -4- prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. It was also observed that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers was not to incentivize any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 10. Reliance can also be placed upon Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would be rendered infructuous. Reference can also be made to the judgment rendered in K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 184, whereby, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and FIR No. 56 dated 19.05.2010, registered under Sections 307, 324, 323, 341, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur along with all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence, both dated 18.01.2012, passed by the Court of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-442-SB-2012 (O&M) -5- learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is quashed qua the appellant on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. His personal/surety bonds be discharged accordingly. 12. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. 10.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.10 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document