CRM-M-55451- 356 IN TH Sandeep Kaur and State of Punjab CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Mr. K Ms. S for re Rajesh Bhardwa 1. Insta dated 31.05.2019 added Sections 32 subsequent proce 06.03.2025, Anne 2. The the investigation respectables, fina dispute, which is petitioners are pr exercise and an a the subsequent p justice. -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR -.- CRM Date aur and Others VERSUS and Others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH Mr. J.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the pet Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG Punjab Ms. Sanpreet Singh Kalra, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. -.- ardwaj, J. (ORAL) Instant petition has been filed pray .2019 registered under Sections 452, ions 325 and 201 IPC at Police Station proceedings arising therefrom on the , Annexure P-2. The FIR in question was lodged by c igation commenced thereon. Howe s, finally the parties arrived at settleme ch is apparent from Annexure P-2. On are praying that continuation of thes d an abuse of process of the Court and uent proceedings arising therefrom m -1- UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-55451-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.05.2026 ....Petitioners ....Respondents JESH BHARDWAJ the petitioners. Punjab. vocate praying for quashing of FIR No.11 452, 323, 506 and 34 IPC and later o tation City Rajpura, District Patiala an on the basis of compromise deed date ed by complainant-respondent No.2 an owever, with the intervention o ttlement and they resolved their inter s . On the basis of the compromise, th of these proceedings would be a futi urt and thus, the FIR in question and a rom may be quashed in the interest o 116, later on and d dated o.2 and tion of inter se ise, the a futile and all terest of TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55451- 3. This before the trial Co before the Court, report. 4. In pu Rajpura has sent r annexed original respondent No.3 Kaur, the petition 11.03.2026 and s the statements, le in its report that t been mentioned i i.e. the present p accused have bee case. 5. Lear compromised the against the petiti accepted. 6. Lear objection, if the p 7. I hav the report sent by 8. A ba -2025 (O&M) This Court vide order dated 14.10.2 trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for record Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magis In pursuance to the same, learned Su s sent reports dated 15.04.2026 and 2 iginal statements of respondent No.2 No.3/injured-Ranjit Singh and resp etitioners, namely, Manjit Singh, Jasv and statement of ASI Jaswinder Pal nts, learned Sub Divisional Judicial M that the compromise is genuine, volu oned in the report that there are only sent petitioners. It is further mention een declared proclaimed offender Learned counsel for the petitioners h ed the matter amicably and have de petitioners quashed and as such the Learned counsel for respondents f the present FIR is quashed. I have heard learned counsel for th ent by learned Sub Divisional Judicial A bare perusal of statutory provisio -2- 4.10.2025 directed the parties to appe recording their statements, as contende Magistrate was also directed to send i Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrat 23.03.2026. With the reports, he ha t No.2- complainant Harvinder Sing d respondent No. 4/injured-Jaswind , Jasvir Kaur and Sandeep Kaur date r Pal dated 20.03.2026. On the basis o icial Magistrate, Rajpura has conclude e, voluntarily and out of free will. It ha only three accused in the present cas entioned in the report that neither th fender nor they are involved any oth ners has submitted that the parties hav ave decided to get the FIR registere ch the present petition is liable to b No.2 to 4 has also pleaded n for the parties, perused the record an dicial Magistrate, Rajpura. ovisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagr appear ntended send its gistrate, , he has r Singh, swinder dated basis of ncluded ll. It has ent case ther the ny other ies have gistered le to be ded no ord and Nagrik TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55451- Suraksha Sanhita may be necessary the process of an Bhartiya Nagrik which prescribes 2023. 9. Keep fact that both the criminal prosecut number of cases and another, 201 another (2003) 4 case of Kulwind RCR 1052 have d the law. 10. Ther and another (201 the earlier law se Haryana vs Bha as under:- “61. summ proce is dis comp powe exerc -2025 (O&M) anhita, 2023 would show that the High essary to give effect to any order unde of any Court or otherwise to secure agrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is eq cribes the procedure for compounding Keeping in view the nature of offen th the parties have amicably settled osecution would be a futile exercise. cases including Narinder Singh and er, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and 003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 foll lwinder Singh and others Vs. State have dealt with the proposition involv Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court i (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 30 law settled by the Supreme Court for Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 33 “61. The position that emerges fro summarised thus: the power of the H proceeding or FIR or complaint in ex is distinct and different from the po compounding the offences under Se power is of wide plenitude with no s exercised in accord with the guidelin -3- e High Court may make such orders, a r under this Code or to prevent abuse o secure the ends of justice. Section 35 is equally relevant for consideratio unding of the offences under the BN f offences allegedly committed and th ettled their dispute, the continuation o rcise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in h and others Versus State of Punja i and others vs State of Haryana an followed by this Court in Full Benc State of Punjab and another, 2007(3 involved in the present case and settle ourt in Gian Singh vs State of Punja ses 303 further dealt with the issue an urt for quashing of the FIR in State o CC 335. Para 61 of the judgment read es from the above discussion can b f the High Court in quashing a crimin nt in exercise of its inherent jurisdictio the power given to a criminal court fo der Section 320 of the Code. Inhere h no statutory limitation but it has to b uideline engrafted in such power viz; ( rders, as abuse of ion 359 eration, e BNS, and the ation of urt in a Punjab na and ll Bench 2007(3) d settled Punjab sue and State of nt reads can be criminal sdiction ourt for Inherent as to be r viz; (i) TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55451- to se any C comp have of ea exerc natur ment fittin offen natur comp offen the o capac proce overw differ offen partn matri wron resol may comp conv woul injus despi In ot unfai crimi tanta -2025 (O&M) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) t any Court. In what cases power to q complaint or F.I.R may be exercise have settled their dispute would depe of each case and no category can exercise of such power, the High Co nature and gravity of the crime. H mental depravity or offences like mu fittingly quashed even though the v offender have settled the dispute. S nature and have a serious impa compromise between the victim a offences under special statutes like the offences committed by public capacity, etc; cannot provide for a proceedings involving such offence overwhelmingly and pre-dominatin different footing for the purposes offences arising from commercia partnership or such like transaction matrimony relating to dowry, etc. o wrong is basically private or person resolved their entire dispute. In this may quash criminal proceedings compromise between the offender a conviction is remote and bleak and would put the accused to great oppr injustice would be caused to him b despite full and complete settlement In other words, the High Court mu unfair or contrary to the interest criminal proceeding or continuation tantamount to abuse of process -4- r (ii) to prevent abuse of the process o er to quash the criminal proceeding o ercised where the offender and victi d depend on the facts and circumstance y can be prescribed. However, befo igh Court must have due regard to th ime. Heinous and serious offences o ike murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot b the victim or victim’s family and th pute. Such offences are not private impact on society. Similarly, an ctim and offender in relation to th s like Prevention of Corruption Act o ublic servants while working in th for any basis for quashing crimin ffences. But the criminal cases havin minatingly civil flavour stand on rposes of quashing, particularly th mercial, financial, mercantile, civ actions or the offences arising out o tc. or the family disputes where th personal in nature and the parties hav n this category of cases, the High Cou ings if in its view, because of th nder and the victim, the possibility o k and continuation of the criminal cas t oppression and prejudice and extrem him by not quashing the criminal cas ement and compromise with the victim urt must consider whether it would b terest of justice to continue with th ation of the criminal proceeding wou cess of law despite settlement an ocess of eding or victim stances before d to the nces of nnot be and the ivate in ly, any to the Act or in that criminal having on a rly the , civil, out of here the ies have h Court of the bility of nal case extreme nal case victim. ould be ith the g would ent and TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-55451- comp secur an en the H crimi 11. Appl judgments and th into a compromis proceedings woul accepting the pra ends of justice, w Section 482 Cr.P.C 12. In th squarely falls wit hence, FIR No.11 34 IPC and late Rajpura, District hereby quashed 13. Need conditions of the below. Petition sta 14. Pend May 07, 2025 tripti Whether Whether -2025 (O&M) compromise between the victim and secure the ends of justice, it is appro an end and if the answer to the above the High Court shall be well with criminal proceeding.” Applying the law settled by Hon'b and this High Court it is apparent th promise, in the nature of cases as pr s would be merely an abuse of process he prayer of the petitioners by quashin stice, which is primarily the object o Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances, this lls within the ambit and parameters s No.116, dated 31.05.2019 registered d later on added Sections 325 and istrict Patiala and all the subsequent p qua the petitioners, on the basis o Needless to say that the parties shal of the compromise and their statem tion stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, is/are ether speaking/non-speaking : Speakin ether reportable : Yes/N -5- im and the wrongdoer and whether appropriate that criminal case is put above question(s) is in the affirmativ ll within its jurisdiction to quash th Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora o rent that when the parties have entere as prescribed then continuation of th rocess of the Court and by allowing an uashing the FIR would be securing th bject of the legislature enacting und s, this Court finds that the case in han eters settled by judicial precedents an tered under Sections 452, 323, 506 an and 201 IPC at Police Station Ci uent proceedings arising therefrom, asis of compromise Annexure P-2. es shall remain bound by the terms an statements recorded before the Cou is/are also disposed of. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE peaking Yes/No ether to is put to rmative, ash the thora of entered n of the ing and ring the g under in hand and 506 and on City are rms and e Court WAJ) TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document