CRM-M-7592-202 393 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Karamjit Dhaliwal @ Karamjit Singh @ Karam @ Kamal State of Punjab CORAM : HON’BLE Present: Ms. Ruby Kaur for the petitioner. Mr for respondent No.1 Mr. SUDEEPTI SHARMA 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure under Section 279, 304 (Annexure P-1) and DDR No. 39 dated 11 Hoshiarpur (Annexure P of the said FIR and DDR, on the basis of compromise dated 30 3). 2. Pursuant to the order dated Judicial Magistrate 1 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, 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : Karamjit Dhaliwal @ Karamjit Singh @ Karam @ Kamal VERSUS Punjab and others HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA s. Ruby Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Chanota, Advocate for the petitioner. r. Rajender Singh Bhatta, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State. r. H.K. Brinda, Advocate for respondent No.2 -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR ection 279, 304-A, IPC at Police station Tanda District: 1) and DDR No. 39 dated 11-04-2022 Police Station: Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-2) as well as subsequent proceedings and of the said FIR and DDR, on the basis of compromise dated 30 Pursuant to the order dated 27.03.202 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya has been received by this Court whe 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, -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7592-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 Karamjit Dhaliwal @ Karamjit Singh @ Karam @ Kamal ....Petitioner ....Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA for Mr. G.S. Chanota, Advocate Punjab , Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of No.65 dated 08-04-2022 registered Police station Tanda District:- Hoshiarpur 2022 Police Station:-Tanda, District: 2) as well as subsequent proceedings and orders arising out of the said FIR and DDR, on the basis of compromise dated 30-08-2024 (Annexure P .2025, a report dated 24.04.2025 of the has been received by this Court 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, - the Code of registered Hoshiarpur Tanda, District:- orders arising out 2024 (Annexure P- of the rein 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, Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7592-202 undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 objection to the quashing of the present FIR. also been appended with the report. 3. The Apex Court in the case of [2012 (10) SCC 303] 2025 (O&M) undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 objection to the quashing of the present FIR. Copies of s also been appended with the report. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 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. 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 -2- undue influence or fraud and that the complainant/respondent No.2 to 3 have Copies of statements of the parties have Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 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 the ends 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, 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 between the victim - no tatements of the parties have Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 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 the ends 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, 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 between the victim Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7592-202 2025 (O&M) and offender in relation to the offences 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 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 offences 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 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 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- o the offences 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 l 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 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 to continue 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 the answer to the above - o the offences 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 l 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 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 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 to continue 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 e answer to the above Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7592-202 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the law laid down by this Court in Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs (Criminal) 1052] if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under Section 482 Cr.P secure the ends of justice. 5. In view of the above and keeping in view the report Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, i continue with the criminal proceedings. 6. Resultantly, 304-A, IPC at Police station Tanda District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P 39 dated 11-04-2022 Police Station: well as subsequent proceedings and orders arising out of the said FIR and DDR, on the basis of compromise dated 30 7. The petition is according 8. Pending applications, April 30, 2025 Gaurav Aroa Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2025 (O&M) 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 referred to the law laid down by Kulwinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052] wherein it has been held that even in non if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under P.C to quash the proceedings to prevent secure the ends of justice. In view of the above and keeping in view the report 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 continue with the criminal proceedings. Resultantly, FIR No.65 dated 08-04 Police station Tanda District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P 2022 Police Station:-Tanda, District: well as subsequent proceedings and orders arising out of the said FIR and DDR, on the basis of compromise dated 30-08-2024 (Annexure P The petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- 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 referred to the law laid down by . State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR 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 C to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law and In view of the above and keeping in view the report sent by the t Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes t would not be in the interest of justice to 04-2022 registered under Section 279, Police station Tanda District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and DDR No. Tanda, District:- Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-2) as well as subsequent proceedings and orders arising out of the said FIR and DDR, on 2024 (Annexure P-3), is quashed. if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the law laid down by . State of Punjab & Anr. [2007 (3) RCR compoundable offences, if the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court has wide powers under law and trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes t would not be in the interest of justice to ection 279, 1) and DDR No. 2) as well as subsequent proceedings and orders arising out of the said FIR and DDR, on Gaurav Arora 2025.05.01 15:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document