CRM-M-12278-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 292 CRM-M-12278-2025 Date of decision: 10.07.2025 CHAMKAUR SINGH FAUJI AND OTHERS ....PETITIONERS V/s STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Daljeet Singh Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Amandeep Singh Mainse, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Karan Batta, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Milind, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for seeking quashing of FIR No.109 dated 10.11.2023 under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties. 2. On 05.03.2025, the following order was passed: “Prayer is for quashing of FIR No.109 dated 10.11.2023 registered under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur, on the basis of compromise. Notice of motion. At this stage, Mr. Ajaypal Singh Aulakh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the complainant/respondents No.2 to 4. He admitted the correctness of compromise and stated that he has no objection if this petition is allowed. On the asking of this Court, Mr. Inderjeet Singh Ladher, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State. He does not wish JATIN 2025.07.10 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12278-2025 2 to file any reply as the parties are stated to have effected the compromise. So, the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court/Illaqa Magistrate on 04.04.2025 or any other date convenient to the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate and to get record their statements regarding compromise and after recording their statements, learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, is directed to send the same along with his report regarding the genuineness of compromise on or before the date fixed in the instant petition specifically with regard to the following facts : - 1. Number of persons arrayed as accused in the FIR. 2. Whether any accused is proclaimed offender. 3. Stage of the trial/proceedings. 4. Whether the compromise is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. To come up on 10.07.2025 for awaiting the report. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, through electronic mode, for compliance. Petitioner No.3 is permitted to get record her statement to video conferencing, as presently she is residing in Canada.” 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 11.04.2025 from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “(i) As per statement of Investigating Officer, there are seven person who are arranged as accused in the FIR. (ii) No accused has ever been declared as proclaimed offender. (iii) The case is pending for procuring presence of accused. (iv) The compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.” 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed. 5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2). 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. JATIN 2025.07.10 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12278-2025 3 7. This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is : (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. (d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. (e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on JATIN 2025.07.10 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12278-2025 4 vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well. 8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :- (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice. (ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature. (v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition. 9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.109 dated 10.11.2023 under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on JATIN 2025.07.10 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12278-2025 5 the basis of compromise dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P-2),are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE July 10, 2025 jatin Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No JATIN 2025.07.10 17:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document