CRM-M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 129+261 Amandeep Singh Rania and others State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Ms for the petitioner Mr. Mr. for respondent No.2. *** NAMIT KUMAR CRM-12445-2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. Certified copy of judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court Fast Track Court exclusively dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur is taken on record thereby three accused namely Kaur (mother-in charges framed against them. CRM-M-4313- 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 No.157 dated 19.11.2021 and 149 IPC (Sections 379 M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision: Amandeep Singh Rania and others Versus and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR s. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 2025 Application is allowed as prayed for. Certified copy of judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court-cum-Additional District & Fast Track Court exclusively dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur is taken on record thereby three accused namely Bachittar Singh (father in-law) and Navdeep Singh (husband) framed against them. -2025 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 19.11.2021 registered under Sections and 149 IPC (Sections 379-B, 120-B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:01.04.2025 ... Petitioners ... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Punjab. Application is allowed as prayed for. Certified copy of judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Court exclusively dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur is taken on Bachittar Singh (father-in-law), Surjit law) and Navdeep Singh (husband) have been acquitted of the The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 506, 323 B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry s Certified copy of judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed by the - Fast Track Court exclusively dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur is taken on law), Surjit have been acquitted of the The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under for quashing of FIR A, 406, 342, 506, 323 B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) Prohibition Act were added later on) proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of (Annexure P-2) executed between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that seven accused in the FIR and out of them, three accused namely Bachittar Singh (father-in (husband) have been acquitted by the Court of learned cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur present petition is being filed on 3. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. 4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 5. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1 District and Sessions Judge, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. 6. The Hon'ble Full Ben State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Division Bench of this Court in case Haryana and another, compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Prohibition Act were added later on) (Annexure P proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of ) executed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that seven accused in the FIR and out of them, three accused namely Bachittar in-law), Surjit Kaur (mother and) have been acquitted by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum dealing with rape cases, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 16.01.2025 and the present petition is being filed on behalf of remaining four accused. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Ferozepur with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 ding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 08.01.2024 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are total seven accused in the FIR and out of them, three accused namely Bachittar law), Surjit Kaur (mother-in-law) and Navdeep Singh and) have been acquitted by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court- cum-Fast Track Court exclusively vide judgment dated 16.01.2025 and the behalf of remaining four accused. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated 18.02.2025 from learned has been received through learned with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue ch of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that ding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during 1) and all other subsequent 08.01.2024 there are total seven accused in the FIR and out of them, three accused namely Bachittar law) and Navdeep Singh - Fast Track Court exclusively vide judgment dated 16.01.2025 and the Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the present FIR During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the from learned has been received through learned with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue Kulwinder Singh vs. and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of observed that ding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non 7. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 543 under:- “57. The position that emerges from the 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 offe 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 proc 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 prescrib 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 th 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 under special statutes or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre different footing for the purposes of quashi 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 person 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 bl 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, th would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -3- proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non-compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 57. The position that emerges from the 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 offe 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 proc 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 prescrib 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 under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences 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 quashi 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 person 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 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 proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) RCR . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 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 e 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 like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having 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 arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel 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 eak 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 e 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 proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme 2012(4) RCR . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as 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 nces 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 ess 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 ed. 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 e 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 like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on ng, 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 nel 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 eak 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 e 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 PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise b 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the 8. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 482. 9. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respec decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 10. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No. 406, 342, 506, 323 and 149 IPC (Sections 379 Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added later on) consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby qua of compromise, qua the petitioner April 01, 2025 Pankaj* M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -4- 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 482. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, FIR No.157 dated 19.11.2021 registered under Sections 498 406, 342, 506, 323 and 149 IPC (Sections 379 Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added later on) consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby qua of compromise, qua the petitioners only. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite etween 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within criminal proceeding.” The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with tables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, 157 dated 19.11.2021 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 506, 323 and 149 IPC (Sections 379-B, 120-B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were added later on) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite etween 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 question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case 2014(2) RCR parties fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with tables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, A, B and 201 IPC and and all other shed, on the basis PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh