IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 304 Bhupinder Singh and others State of Punjab and a CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. for the petitioner Mr. Rituraj Singh, DAG, Punjab Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for Respondent No.2 **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120 Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of agreement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P 2. Briefly summari respondent-complainant Manjit Singh entered into an agreement with Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and dealer Harmit Singh (Petitioners No.1 to 4 respectively) for Hazara Singh Nagar, the petitioners instead gave him possession of Plot No. the complainant filled the foundation, du up spending Rs. 7 lakh in the process. Thereafter, the original owner of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-50774 Date of decision: Bhupinder Singh and others VERSUS and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Ram Mohinder Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rituraj Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for Respondent No.2 **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is for quashing of FIR No.003 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120 Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). Briefly summarized, the facts of the present case are that the complainant Manjit Singh entered into an agreement with Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and dealer Harmit Singh ers No.1 to 4 respectively) for the P Hazara Singh Nagar, village Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala. However, the petitioners instead gave him possession of Plot No. the complainant filled the foundation, dug a bore in the said plot and ended up spending Rs. 7 lakh in the process. Thereafter, the original owner of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 50774-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.01.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Advocate, Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Prayer in the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya is for quashing of FIR No.003 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the settlement the facts of the present case are that the complainant Manjit Singh entered into an agreement with Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and dealer Harmit Singh the Plot No.16 situated in Sant village Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala. However, the petitioners instead gave him possession of Plot No. 24. In the meantime, g a bore in the said plot and ended up spending Rs. 7 lakh in the process. Thereafter, the original owner of Plot SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -2- No.24 approached the complainant and the latter vacated the plot after being shown the original documents. The present FIR thus came to be registered against the petitioners. 3 However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition. 4 The parties were thus directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2025 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. 5 Pursuant to the said order, a report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, vide Memo No.390 dated 03.11.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under: - “As per the statements of the parties and investigating Officer, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence. The present FIR was lodged against accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh only at the instance of complainant/victim Manjit Singh in this FIR. Except accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh, there is no other person nominated by the police as accused. Accused Bhupinder Singh, Prabhjot Singh, Jatinder Kaur and Harmit Singh and complainant/victim Manjit Singh are party to the compromise and compromise bears their signatures. It is submitted that no PO proceedings are pending against any of accused person nor accused are declared as Proclaimed offender in this case. Accused are not involved in any other FIR. There are above said four total number of accused in the present FIR and Sh. Manjit Singh is only the complainant/victim.” 6. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -3- compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties. 7 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed. 8 The broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641'. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: “16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -4- 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -5- founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -6- the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” 9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. 10 The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section 528 BNSS:- (i) The dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent-complainant on account of the former handing over the possession of Plot No.24 to the latter despite not being the real owners of the said plot. (ii) The petitioners are aged 52 years, 38 years, 37 years and 49 years respectively and continuation of criminal proceedings would hamper their prospects as well as discharge of their social obligations; (iii) The petitioners and the respondent-complainant belong to the same village and a compromise would bring a quietus to the dispute and bring peace and harmony; (iv) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 304 CRM-M-50774-2025 (O&M) -7- an offence that would be shocking to the conscience of the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one shocking to the conscience of the Court; 11 In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641', the instant petition is allowed. FIR No.003 dated 03.01.2025 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Sanaur, District Patiala, along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner(s) on the basis of settlement agreement dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). However, the same would be subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000/- each to be deposited by the petitioners with the Nishkam Sewa High Court Lawyers Society; A/C-43373609961; SBI, HC Branch, Chandigarh within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. Petition is allowed in above terms. 14.01.2026 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Sumit Gusain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.01.27 20:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document