CRM-M-70537 IN T 333(1) MAKHAN SIN STATE OF PU CORAM:- HO Present: Ms Ms for Ms Mr for RUPINDERJIT 1. Th Suraksha Sanhi (Annexure P-1) added later on) under Sections 148, 149 IPC Barnala and jud (Annexure P 70537-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGAR CR Da N SINGH AND OTHERS Versus F PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPIN Ms. Rajvinder Kaur, Advocate for Ms. Amarinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punja Mr. Sukhwinder Bhullar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** ERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Secti Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of DDR/R 1), under Sections 324, 506, 34 er on) in FIR No.82, dated 06.10.20 ctions 458, 323, 506 IPC (Sections 32 IPC deleted later on), at Police S nd judgment of conviction and order e P-3) passed by learned JMIC PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-70537-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.02.2026 ….Petitioners ....Respondents UPINDERJIT CHAHAL te for Punjab. vocate r Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik DR/Rapat No.30, dated 06.10.2016 6, 34 IPC (Sections 323, 201 IPC .10.2016 (Annexure P-2) registered ons 325, 201, 34 added and Sections lice Station Tappa Mandi, District order of sentence dated 07.03.2024 JMIC, Barnala, and subsequent ners ents agrik 2016 IPC tered tions strict 2024 uent GURPREET 2026.02.25 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-70537 proceedings ari (Annexure P-4) 2. Lea of the petitione submits that tho of competent compromise an any more. Thus judgment of con learned JMIC, 3. Lea submissions ma that the inter se has no objectio the judgment of 4. Th appear before th as contended be directed to send 5. Pur Judicial Magist the basis of th report dated 13 between the par 70537-2025 (O&M) 2 gs arising therefrom on the basis of 4). Learned counsel for the petitioner titioners is nothing but an abuse of hat though the petitioners have alread etent jurisdiction, however, now, th ise and respondent No.2 does not wa . Thus, the FIR along with all conseq of conviction and order of sentence MIC, Barnala may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel for responden ns made by counsel for the petitione er se dispute between the parties is bjection, if the FIR alongwith conseq ent of conviction is quashed. This Court vide order dated 15.1 fore the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate ded before the Court, and the trial Co o send its report. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, pa agistrate Ist Class, Barnala and got of the statements so recorded, learn 13.02.2026 to the effect that the c the parties voluntarily and without any sis of compromise dated 05.12.2025 itioners submits that the prosecution se of the process of the Court. He already been convicted by the Court ow, the parties have arrived at a ot want to prosecute the petitioners consequential proceedings alongwith ence dated 07.03.2024 passed by the shed. pondent No.2 has affirmed the titioners and thus, he has submitted ties is resolved amicably. Hence, he consequential proceedings including 15.12.2025 directed the parties to strate for recording their statements, rial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also er, parties have appeared before the d got their statements recorded. On , learned Magistrate has submitted t the compromise has been effected ut any coercion or undue influence. 2025 ution t. He ourt at a ners with y the the itted e, he ding es to ents, also e the . On itted ected GURPREET 2026.02.25 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-70537 6. I h and the report se 7. A would show tha to give effect to of any Court or is equally relev compounding o 8. Ho Madhya Prades "13 offe ann app the is a wh exe sur arr bes tou Cr. and jus Cr. and oth per by SC 70537-2025 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for t port sent by the learned Judicial Magi A bare perusal of statutory prov ow that the High Court may make suc fect to any order under this Code or t urt or otherwise to secure the ends of y relevant for consideration, which ding of the offences under the Bharatiy Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Ramg radesh', 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 32 "13. It appears to us that criminal p offences or where the offences are predo annulled irrespective of the fact that tr appeal stands dismissed against convict the sole form of delivering justice. Socie is always subject to lawful exceptions. It where compromise is struck post con exercise such discretion with rectitude, surrounding the incident, the fashion i arrived at, and with due regard to the na besides the conduct of the accused, be touchstone for exercising the extraor Cr.P.C., 1973 would be to secure the en and fast line constricting the power of justice. A restrictive construction of in Cr.P.C., 1973 may lead to rigid or speci and circumstances of a case, may rath other hand, in cases where heinous o perpetrators, no such benefit ought to b by this Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. SCC 466 and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). or the parties, perused the record l Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. ovision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. ke such orders, as may be necessary de or to prevent abuse of the process nds of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. hich prescribes the procedure for haratiya Nyaya Sanhita. amgopal and another v. State of l) 322 has held as under: al proceedings involving non-heinous redominantly of a private nature, can be at trial has already been concluded or nviction. Handing out punishment is not Societal method of applying laws evenly ns. It goes without saying, that the cases conviction, the High Court ought to ude, keeping in view the circumstances ion in which the compromise has been he nature and seriousness of the offence, d, before and after the incidence. The raordinary power under Section 482 e ends of justice. There can be no hard er of the High Court to do substantial of inherent powers under Section 482 specious justice, which in the given facts rather lead to grave injustice. On the us offences have been proved against to be extended, as cautiously observed Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6 cord .S.S. ssary cess S.S. for of ous be or not nly ses to ces een ce, he 82 ard tial 82 cts the nst ved ) 6 GURPREET 2026.02.25 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-70537 XX 19. wh in ext Cr. can No exe in m (ii) bet pri rele 9. Ap of judgments an entered into a merely an abus prayer of the pe justice, which is 528 of B.N.S.S. 10. As within the amb DDR/Rapat No 506, 34 IPC (S 06.10.2016 (An (Sections 325, 2 Police Station order of sentenc 70537-2025 (O&M) 4 XXX XXX XXX 19. We thus sum-up and hold that as op where the Court is squarely guided by t in respect of offences 'compoundable' w extraordinary power enjoined upon a Cr.P.C., 1973 or vested in this Court un can be invoked beyond the metes and b Nonetheless, we reiterate that such pow exercised carefully in the context of quas in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offe (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (ii between the accused and the victim; & ( prior to and after the occurrence of t relevant considerations." Applying the law settled by Hon'b ents and this High Court, it is appare nto a compromise, then continuation n abuse of process of the Court and b the petitioners by quashing the case w hich is primarily the object of the legi N.S.S. As a result, this Court finds that t e ambit and parameters settled by ju at No.30, dated 06.10.2016 (Annexu IPC (Sections 323, 201 IPC added l 6 (Annexure P-2) registered under 325, 201, 34 added and Sections 148 ation Tappa Mandi, District Barnala sentence dated 07.03.2024 (Annexure s opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 by the compromise between the parties le' within the statutory framework, the on a High Court under Section 482 rt under Article 142 of the Constitution, nd bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C., 1973 powers of wide amplitude ought to be quashing criminal proceedings, bearing offence on the conscious of the society; y; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise ; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, of the purported offence and/or other Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora apparent that when the parties have uation of the proceedings would be t and by allowing and accepting the case would be securing the ends of he legislature enacting under Section that the case in hand squarely falls by judicial precedents and hence, nnexure P-1), under Sections 324, dded later on) in FIR No.82, dated under Sections 458, 323, 506 IPC ns 148, 149 IPC deleted later on), at nala and judgment of conviction and exure P-3) passed by learned JMIC, 73 ties the 82 on, 73 be ing ty; ise ns, her thora have d be g the ds of ction falls ence, 324, ated IPC at and IC, GURPREET 2026.02.25 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document. CRM-M-70537 Barnala, are he (Annexure P-4) 11. Pet 19.02.2026 Gurpreet 70537-2025 (O&M) 5 are hereby quashed on the basis of c 4). Petition stands allowed. i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No is of compromise dated 05.12.2025 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE es/No 2025 AL) GURPREET 2026.02.25 09:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.