CRM-M-15565 [372-1] Garib Singh and others State of Punjab Coram : Present: RAJESH BHARDWAJ 1. Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326 registered at Police consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of deed/affidavit 2. trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved which is apparent from Compromise Deed P-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of 15565-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- Date of Decision : Garib Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Sourav Bhatia, Advocate Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate **** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326 registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of deed/affidavit dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P FIR in question was filed by complainant trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved which is apparent from Compromise Deed . On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -15565-2025 Date of Decision : 26.08.2025 …Petitioners ….Respondents RAJESH BHARDWAJ Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab. Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 7. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326,341, 506, 148,149 of IPC Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-3). by complainant-respondent and the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed/affidavit, annexed as Annexu . On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court 1 Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated ,341, 506, 148,149 of IPC with all compromise and the respectables, finally dispute, as Annexure invoking the these the Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.29 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15565 and thus, the FIR in question along proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest 3. appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa directed to send its report. 4. Ludhiana, he has annexed the separate original statements of Nos.2 to 7 Singh, Surjeet Singh and Simranjeet Singh, Garib Singh, Tirath Singh, Hardeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh @ Bunty, Charanjit Kaur, Jaspreet Kaur @ Babbu, Harchad Singh @ Chand and Harjinder Singh @ Laddi original statement of stated that learned Judicial Magistrate Ist that the compromise effected free will without any mentioned that as per other accused in the proclaimed 5. and the report sent by the learned 15565-2025 and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequent and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest This Court vide order dated appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa directed to send its report. In pursuance to the same, learned Ludhiana, has sent the report dated 21.08.2025 he has annexed the separate original statements of 2 to 7, namely, Sukhjit Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhpreet Singh, Surjeet Singh and Simranjeet Singh, Garib Singh, Tirath Singh, Hardeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh @ Bunty, Charanjit Kaur, Jaspreet Kaur @ Babbu, Harchad Singh @ Chand and Harjinder Singh @ Laddi recorded on 04.08.2025 original statement of Retd. SI Satwinder Singh stated that one Karnail Kaur had already died Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and with their free will without any pressure or misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of Retd. SI Satwinder Singh other accused in the present FIR and none of the parties have been declared proclaimed offender in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, with all consequent and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 directed the parties appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, 21.08.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the separate original statements of complainant/respondent Sukhjit Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhpreet Singh, Surjeet Singh and Simranjeet Singh, and accused/petitioners, namely, Garib Singh, Tirath Singh, Hardeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh @ Bunty, Charanjit Kaur, Jaspreet Kaur @ Babbu, Harchad Singh @ Chand and 04.08.2025. He has also annexed the Satwinder Singh recorded on 04.08.2025 and already died. On the basis of the statements, Ludhiana, has concluded in the report between the parties is genuine and with their pressure or misrepresentation. It has further been Retd. SI Satwinder Singh, there is no present FIR and none of the parties have been declared I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. 2 subsequent directed the parties to statements, Magistrate was also Class, report, complainant/respondent Sukhjit Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhpreet namely, Garib Singh, Tirath Singh, Hardeep Singh, Ramandeep Singh @ Bunty, Charanjit Kaur, Jaspreet Kaur @ Babbu, Harchad Singh @ Chand and also annexed the and . On the basis of the statements, has concluded in the report between the parties is genuine and with their pressure or misrepresentation. It has further been , there is no present FIR and none of the parties have been declared record RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.29 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15565 6. would show that the High Court to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. is equally relevant for consideration, which compounding of the offences under the 7. the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecutio Supreme Court in a number of cases including Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; others vs followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) propositio 8. Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for the FIR in 61 of the judgment r 15565-2025 A bare perusal of statutory provision of the would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. is equally relevant for consideration, which compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Supreme Court in a number of cases including Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 61 of the judgment reads as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above summarised thus: the power of the High proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. is of wide plenitude with no statutory in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. may make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S. is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the n would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S. Joshi and State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the and settled the law. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is 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 guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what 3 528 of B.N.S.S. necessary of the process Section 359 B.N.S.S. the procedure for and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the Hon'ble and others Joshi and Supreme Court Cases 675 Kulwinder Singh and others have dealt with the Singh vs State of dealt with quashing of . Para discussion can be Court in quashing a criminal complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is power given to a criminal court for Inherent power limitation but it has to be exercised guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the Court. In what RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.29 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15565 9. of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the entered into a compromise, then continuation of the 15565-2025 cases power to quash the criminal be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, High Court must have due regard to the nature and Heinous and serious offences of mental 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 o the offences under special statutes like offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings such offences. But the criminal cases having dominatingly civil flavour stand on quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like t arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family where the wrong is basically private or personal in have resolved their entire dispute. In Court may quash 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 would put the accused to great oppression and injustice would be caused to him by 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 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 that criminal case is put to an end and if the question(s) is in the affirmative, the jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the entered into a compromise, then continuation of the cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may offender and victim have settled their dispute on the facts and circumstances of each case and no can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, 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, be fittingly quashed even though the victim or offender have settled the dispute. Such offences 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 public servants while working in that capacity, etc; provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre dominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of the offences arising from commercial, financial, 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 entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High proceedings if in its view, because of the 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 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 proceeding would tantamount to abuse of despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the 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 the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its criminal proceeding.” Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in pleth of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be 4 proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may offender and victim have settled their dispute circumstances of each case and no can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the gravity of the crime. depravity or offences like murder, be fittingly quashed even though the victim or offender have settled the dispute. Such offences in relation to Prevention of Corruption Act or the public servants while working in that capacity, etc; involving overwhelmingly and pre- a different footing for the purposes of the offences arising from commercial, financial, ransactions or the offences disputes nature and the parties this category of cases, the High proceedings if in its view, because of the between the offender and the victim, the possibility of criminal case xtreme not quashing the criminal case despite settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words,the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or criminal proceeding proceeding would tantamount to abuse of despite settlement and compromise between the victim and appropriate answer to the above High Court shall be well within its plethora parties have proceedings would be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.29 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15565 merely an abuse of process of the Court and by prayer of the petitioners b justice, which is primarily the object of the Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 10. within the ambit and parameters settl Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326,341, 506, 148,149 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are the petitioners on the basis of (Annexure P terms and conditions of the compromise and their before the Court below. 11. 26.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 15565-2025 merely an abuse of process of the Court and by prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case justice, which is primarily the object of the Section 528 of B.N.S.S. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326,341, 506, 148,149 of registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are the petitioners on the basis of compromise deed/affidavit dated 27.07.2024 (Annexure P-3). Needless to say that the parties shall remain terms and conditions of the compromise and their before the Court below. Petition stands allowed. .08.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the y quashing the case would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls ed by judicial precedents and hence, Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326,341, 506, 148,149 of registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua compromise deed/affidavit dated 27.07.2024 t the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 allowing and accepting the would be securing the ends of legislature enacting under falls hence, Cross Case DDR No.16, dated 22.04.2024 under Sections 323,324, 325, 341, 506, 148,149 of IPC and Section 326 IPC added later on in case FIR No.50 dated 17.03.2024 under Sections 323, 324, 326,341, 506, 148,149 of along qua compromise deed/affidavit dated 27.07.2024 bound by the statements recorded RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.29 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document