IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 303 CRM-M-19557-2024 Date of decision: March 11th, 2025 Gurdeep Singh alias Goli and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present: Mr. Mandeep Kumar Dhot, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Inderpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. Prayer in the instant petition is for quashing of FIR No.78 dated 21.07.2021 under Sections 324, 506, 148, 149, 326 of the IPC registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure P-2). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, subsequent to the registration of the FIR in question (Annexure P-1), the parties have amicably resolved their disputes with the intervention of respectable members of society and have decided to put an end to the criminal proceedings pending between them. It is contended in light of the compromise so affected, the continuation of the present proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an exercise in futility. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19557-2024 -2- 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 (complainant) does not dispute the factum of the compromise and does not oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR on that basis. 4. This Court, vide its order dated 22.04.2024, had directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court to record their statements concerning the compromise. Pursuant thereto, a report dated 09.09.2024 had been received from learned JMIC, Sangrur, confirming that the compromise has indeed been effected voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion and that the complainant has unequivocally stated that he has no objection if the FIR against the accused-petitioners is a quashed. 5. However, the learned State counsel has strenuously opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the criminal antecedents of the petitioners cannot be ignored. It is submitted that petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh has been booked in as many as ten FIRs, while petitioners, Harpreet Singh alias Kala and Gurpreet Singh alias Motu are each involved in one additional FIR. Given this background, the learned State counsel argues that there is a strong likelihood that the complainant may have been subjected to pressure or undue influence, compelling him to enter into a compromise. Additionally, it is contended that in view of petitioner- Dhuni's extensive criminal history, the present FIR ought not to be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the parties. In support of this argument, learned State counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others 2019(5) SCC 688. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19557-2024 -3- 6. During the course of arguments, this Court posed a pointed query to the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the present petition in light of the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, particularly petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh. In response, learned counsel submitted, in the alternative that the FIR may be quashed with respect to the other petitioners while allowing the case to continue against petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh. 7. However, learned State counsel, on instructions, has vehemently opposed this alternative prayer, contending that such a course of action is impermissible in law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material record. 9. This Court is mindful of the well-settled principle that in cases where the offences are private in nature and the parties have amicably settled their disputes, the Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings in order to foster harmony and avoid unnecessary litigation. However, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS is not automatic or mechanical but must be undertaken with due circumspection. 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Versus Lakshmi Narayan’s case (supra) has categorically held that while considering a plea for quashing of an FIR on the basis of a compromise, the Court must examine the antecedents and conduct of the accused, including whether the accused was absconding, how the compromise was arrived at, and whether it is a genuine settlement or a product of undue influence. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under: PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19557-2024 -4- “13. XXXX XXXX XXXX v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.” 11. Further, in Criminal Appeal No.1514 of 2022 titled as P. Dharam Raj Versus Shanmugam and others, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has cautioned against the indiscriminate quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise in cases where the alleged offences have an impact beyond the individual complainant and accused. Hon’ble the Apex Court in P. Dharam Raj’s case (supra) observed as under: “42. Thus it is clear from the march of law that the Court has to go slow even while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC or Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement reached between the parties, when the offences are capable of having an impact not merely on the complainant and the accused but also on others.” 12. Adverting to the present case, it is evident that the report of the learned trial Court that the petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands, as the factum of petitioner-Dhuni's extensive criminal antecedents was not disclosed at the outset. This non-disclosure is a PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19557-2024 -5- material suppression that also affects the maintainability of the petition. 13. As regards the alternative plea for quashing the FIR to the exclusion of petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh, this Court finds itself bound by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CRM-M No.48043 of 2023 titled as Rakesh Das Versus State of Haryana and another, wherein it has been unequivocally held that an FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of a partial compromise. The relevant observations of this Court in Rakesh Das’s case (supra) are as follows: “15. An incisive reading of the facts set-forth thereins, whereins, all the principles (supra) become settled, but do not suggest that the said principles became erected, even when a partial compromise became arrived at amongst the concerned, and/or when no composite compromise became arrived at amongst all concerned, nor also but obviously the plenitude of jurisdiction preserved in the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C., became exposited thereins, to be available to become well recoursed, even when the concerned make only a piecemeal compromise, inasmuch as, to the extent that some of the offenders are omitted to be mentioned in the settlement as becomes drawn, and/or even when some of the aggrieved from the offending, act of the offender(s) are not included in the said made settlement. 16. In consequence, if the learned Single Benches of this Court after receiving a piecemeal settlement, did proceed to record a piecemeal order of composition of offence(s), besides made orders fir the quashing of the verdicts of conviction drawn against the concerned, by the learned trial Judge concerned, whereagainst thus subjudice appeal(s) become instituted before the learned Appellate Court concerned, but basing them on the judgments (supra), are made, thus without a careful and PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-19557-2024 -6- insightful reading(s) being made, both to the facts set- forth in the verdicts (supra), and, of the guidelines (supra) erected thereons. 17. Consequently, the views taken by the learned Single Benches of this Court, based upon the judgments (supra) wherebys they proceeded to receive piecemeal settlements drawn amongst the concerned, and, also proceeded to record a piecemeal order of composition, are prima facie made outside the contours of the guidelines spelt in the verdicts (supra). In consequence, the view(s) taken in the said verdicts, thus is per incuriam, the expostulations of law (supra), therebys the said adopted view(s), thus to the considered mind of this Court, but require(s) to be hereafter not become. adopted by the leamed Single Benches of this Court.” 14. Given the above discussion, and particularly in view of the serious criminal antecedents of petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh, this Court finds no justification to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS to quash the present FIR on the basis of compromise. Furthermore, in light of the settled legal position that an FIR cannot be quashed in a piecemeal manner, the alternative prayer for quashing the FIR qua the remaining petitioners while allowing proceedings to continue against petitioner-Dhuni alias Kulwinder Singh is also untenable. 15. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed. 16. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. March 11th, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.03.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh