CRM-M-792-2025 291 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sunita Rani and Another State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE Present: Mr Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin Sharma, SUDEEPTI SHARMA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 11.10.2024 registered under Sections (BNS) of 2023 at Police Station proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise 2). 2. Pursu the Judicial Magistrate 1 wherein, it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : Sunita Rani and Another VERSUS Punjab and Another HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. P.S.Miglani, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing of FIR No. registered under Sections 85, 316(2) of the at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise Pursuant to the order dated 20.01.2025 the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-792-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.02.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Advocate for respondent No.2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya for quashing of FIR No.0100 dated 85, 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P .01.2025, a report dated 07.02.2025 has been received by this Court it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the Bharatiya dated Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and all subsequent (Annexure P- 07.02.2025 of has been received by this Court it has been stated that the statements of the parties have been recorded and the parties have stated that they have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, pressure, undue influence or fraud and that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-792-2025 complainant/respondent No.2 has no o Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. 3. The Apex Court in the case of Anr. [2012 (10) SCC 303] 2025 (O&M) complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 2012 (10) SCC 303] has held as under : “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cann even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation t -2- bjection to the quashing of the present FIR. Statements of the parties have also been appended with the report. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure ce or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and h case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences bjection to the quashing of the present FIR. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure ce or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and h case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences ot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise o the offences TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-792-2025 2025 (O&M) under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the crimina cases having overwhelmingly and pre flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or c criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if th -3- under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the crimina cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice ontinue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if th under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice ontinuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-792-2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not b continue with the criminal proceedings. 6. Resultantly, 85, 316(2) of the Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur the said FIR, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P 7. The petition is accordingly allowed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. February 10, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Or [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve abuse of law and secure the ends of justice. In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not b the criminal proceedings. Resultantly, FIR No.0100 dated 11.10.2024 85, 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur including all subsequent proceedings arising out of on the basis of compromise (Annexure P The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. February 10, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to preve In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to 11.10.2024 registered under Sections (BNS) of 2023 at Police Station ubsequent proceedings arising out of on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2), is quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the law laid s. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. wherein it has been held that even in non- compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings to prevent In view of the above and keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes e in the interest of justice to registered under Sections at Police Station ubsequent proceedings arising out of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.02.11 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document