CRM-M No.21672 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 250 Gurvinder Singh Nisha Saini and another CORAM : HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sismi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, *** NAMIT KUMAR 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section No.COMI/605/2015 dated 17.11.2015 titled as Singh pending instance of respondent No.1 subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure P 3) on the basis of settlement/agreement dated 04.04.2025 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 2. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that respondent No.1 are husband and wife and therefore, may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. No.21672 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision: Gurvinder Singh Versus and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate Mr. Akshay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sismi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Jindal, AAG, Punjab. *** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of No.COMI/605/2015 dated 17.11.2015 titled as pending before the CJM, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P instance of respondent No.1-wife under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) and report under Sect 3) on the basis of settlement/agreement dated 04.04.2025 executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 Learned counsel for the parties have stated that respondent No.1 are husband and wife and therefore, may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.21672 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:26.05.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Sismi Dhir Malhotra, Advocate The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No.COMI/605/2015 dated 17.11.2015 titled as Nisha Saini Vs. Gurvinder before the CJM, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) instituted at the wife under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 2) and report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P- 3) on the basis of settlement/agreement dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are husband and wife and therefore, the present complaint may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. s husband Criminal Complaint bearing Nisha Saini Vs. Gurvinder 1) instituted at the wife under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated - 1) the petitioner and complaint PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.05.28 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.21672 of 2018 3. During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statem genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 4. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1 District and Sessions Judge, which, it has been undue influence or coercion from any side. 5. The Hon'ble Full Benc 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 proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving non 6. 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 No.21672 of 2018 -2- 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, Hoshiarpur has been received through learned District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been stated 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 compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during 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 During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was ents of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated 23.05.2025 from learned has been received through learned , with statements of the parties, in that the compromise is genuine and there was no h 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 compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during 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 During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was ents of all the concerned parties, with regard to the from learned has been received through learned , with statements of the parties, in that the compromise is genuine and there was no Kulwinder Singh vs. and Hon'ble Sube Singh and another vs. State of observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during 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 PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.05.28 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.21672 of 2018 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 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 7. The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Criminal) 482. 8. 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 for quashing the present the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have No.21672 of 2018 -3- 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 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 and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section for quashing the present complaint. The compromise has been arrived at with vention of the respectables and family members and the parties have 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 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 and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed . The compromise has been arrived at with vention of the respectables and family members and the parties have 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 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 and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise has been filed . The compromise has been arrived at with vention of the respectables and family members and the parties have PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.05.28 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.21672 of 2018 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 co the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned 17.11.2015 titled as Hoshiarpur under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08 and report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. compromise, qua the petitioner only. May 26, 2025 Pankaj* No.21672 of 2018 -4- 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 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, the impugned Criminal Complaint bearing No.COMI/605/2015 dated 17.11.2015 titled as Nisha Saini Vs. Gurvinder Singh Hoshiarpur under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08 and report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the petitioner only. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 unsel 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, Criminal Complaint bearing No.COMI/605/2015 dated Nisha Saini Vs. Gurvinder Singh pending before the CJM, Hoshiarpur under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08.02.2018 are hereby quashed, on the basis of (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No 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, Criminal Complaint bearing No.COMI/605/2015 dated pending before the CJM, Hoshiarpur under Section 376, 376B IPC along with all subsequent .02.2018 are hereby quashed, on the basis of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.05.28 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh