IN THE 255 Gagandeep Singh State of Punjab and CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. for VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Prayer Nagarik Suraksha 25.04.2021 under Police Station Sadar subsequent proceedings 22.07.2025 (Annexure 2. Briefly statement of Gurcharan Gabhe Majra, Kharar, extracted as under: “I am worker. Gagandeep front stopped THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55682 Date of decision: Singh and another VERSUS and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD Mr. Kirpal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sahil Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kuljinder Dhindsa, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Harsh, Advocate, respondent No.2. (through VC) BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for quashing under Sections 323, 341, 326, 506, 34 Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar, proceedings arising therefrom on the (Annexure P-2). Briefly summarized, the aforesaid Gurcharan Singh, son of Gurdev Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under:- am a resident of the above address worker. Today I was going to my field Gagandeep Singh and an unknown front on a motorcycle number PB65AY stopped me and the above two persons PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 55682-2025(O&M) decision: 23.01.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ petitioners. Punjab. Section 528 of the Bharatiya quashing of FIR No.98 dated 34 and 201 IPC registered at Nagar, Mohali along with all the basis of compromise dated aforesaid FIR was registered on the Gurdev Singh resident of Village Mohali, relevant part of which is address and I am doing a labour field to get some tudi, when unknown person with him came in PB65AY 2857, brand Platina and persons started beating me. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 CRM-M-55682-2025(O&M) -2- Gagandeep Singh whose wife was coming behind them shouted him and said that he should not escape today, his work should be completed today. On which these people put a rope around my neck and threw me down and beat me badly with their feet and hands. Gagandeep Singh brought him in his motorcycle with a Dattar. When he was about to hit me on the shoulder, I put my hand forward, which hit the finger of my left hand with the thumb. Due to which my finger was cut and started hanging. On which I started crying, beating, beating. On hearing the crying, people started gathering. Seeing the gathering of people, these people fled from the spot along with their Dattar. On hearing my cry, my nephew picked me up and brought me to the Civil Hospital, Kharar for treatment. Where the doctor referred me to PGI Chandigarh. Where I am undergoing treatment. The reason for the enmity is that I have filled the foundation in my place. They are not letting me build a wall. I have written a statement to you. I heard it right.” 3. However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition. The parties were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 01.10.2025 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for. 4. Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, vide Memo No.166 dated 28.10.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:- ”1. As per the statement of SHO at P.S. Sadar, Kharar, there are only two accused namely Gagandeep Singh and Manpreet Kaur in the present case. 2. There is one complainant/victim namely Gurcharan Singh in the present case. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 CRM-M-55682-2025(O&M) -3- 3. As per the statement of SHO at P.S. Sadar, Kharar, all the accused and complainant/victims are party to compromise and signed the same. No effected person is left out or arrayed as party in the quashing petition before Hon'ble High Court. 4. As per the statement of SHO at P.S. Sadar, Kharar, no accused has been declared as proclaimed offender. 5. As per the statements of the parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties.” 5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Another reported as (2014) 9 SCC 653 has held that although non-compoundable offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be formally compounded, the High Court can still quash such criminal proceedings in appropriate cases by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., if the parties have genuinely and voluntarily settled their dispute. The Court has held that this power must be exercised on a case-to-case basis. Serious and heinous offences affecting society at large, such as rape or murder, cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. However, where the dispute is purely personal, does not affect public peace, the victim has no objection, and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the High Court may quash the case to secure the ends of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 CRM-M-55682-2025(O&M) -4- justice and avoid unnecessary waste of judicial time. The relevant extract thereof reads as thus : “4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 : 2012(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 549 : (2012)10 SCC 303). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquillity and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.” SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 CRM-M-55682-2025(O&M) -5- 9. On consideration of the above, the following relevant factors emerge for supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023:- a. It is established from the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, that the parties have entered into a compromise voluntarily, which is genuine in nature and has been effected without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure. b. The allegations in the FIR disclose a sudden altercation occurred in the heat of the moment and do not prima facie indicate any premeditated or calculated criminal intent on the part of the accused. c. The petitioners are aged about 31 and 26 years respectively, and their continued involvement in criminal proceedings or incarceration is likely to cause serious and disproportionate hardship in the discharge of their social and familial obligations. d. Significantly, the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and entered into a compromise of their own free will, with the intervention of respectable members of the society and bringing the criminal proceedings to an end at this juncture would promote peace, harmony and tranquillity between the parties. e. The offence(s) alleged can neither be characterised as heinous or of such gravity as to shock the collective conscience of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 255 CRM-M-55682-2025(O&M) -6- society, nor do they partake the nature of offences that would shock the conscience of the Court. f. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, the complainant is unlikely to support the prosecution case; consequently, continuation of the proceedings would serve no larger public interest and would merely result in an avoidable wastage of valuable judicial time. g. In the totality of the circumstances, the continuation of the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom would amount to an abuse of the process of law and the ends of justice would be better served by quashing the same in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 10. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar and having regard to the settled principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on the subject, the instant petition is allowed. The FIR No.98 dated 25.04.2021 under Sections 323, 341, 326, 506, 34 and 201 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom is hereby quashed in view of the compromise dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-2). 11. Petition is allowed in the above terms. 23.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.02.04 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document