1 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14712-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Karanjeet Singh @ Karan Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU Present: Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.S.Walia, AAG, Punjab Mr. Himanshu Choudhary, Advocate, for Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for quashing of FIR No.31 dated 24.02.2025 (P-1), under Sections 281, 125(a), 125(b), 324(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), registered at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 05.03.2025 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. . 2. Allegations are that petitioner while driving the offending car bearing registration No.DL-1CS-4166 in a rash or negligent manner collided his car with the motorcycle of de facto complainant-Gurjeet Singh, as a result thereof he received multiple and grievous injuries on his person and his motorcycle was also damaged. 3. Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 parties, i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police officer present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. 7. While issuing notice of motion on 19.03.2025, this Court has passed the following order:- “Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. (2) Notice of motion. (3) Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. (4) Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. He acknowledged the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. (5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day. (6) Petitioner shall file his affidavit that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise. (7) In view of the above, let parties appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 03.04.2025, for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them. (8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the next date of hearing containing the following information:- (i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner? (ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid? Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 (iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details /particulars of such person(s)? (iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof? (v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case /dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? (vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not? (9) List before this Court on 30.04.2025 for further consideration. (10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection? (11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance. (12) Be shown in the urgent list..” 8. In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 04.04.2025 has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhuri. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:- “(i) It is humbly submitted that from the statements of the complainant and the accused named above, it appears that the statements of the parties are bonafide and not a result of any pressure or coercion, in any manner. (ii) From the statements of the complainant and the accused named above, it appears that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid. (iii) As per the statements of the complainant and accused named above, as well as the statement of Investigating Officer ASI Amrinder Singh, both the complainant and the accused are party to the compromise in question. (iv) As per the statement of the Investigating Officer of the case, no other criminal case is pending against the accused, Karanjeet Singh @ Karan Singh and no criminal case is pending against the complainant, Gurjeet Singh.” A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is no objection by either side against each other. 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:- Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 “61. 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 10. In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice. 11. Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. 30.04.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.01 13:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document