CRM-M-22510- 330 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Devinder Singh and Another State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ms. Simran Goria, AAG Punjab. Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Raikot, District Ludhiana the basis of compromise deed dated 2. The FIR the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Annex petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom justice. -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Devinder Singh and Another VERSUS and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Simranjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Simran Goria, AAG Punjab. Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. -.- Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom the basis of compromise deed dated 20.02.2025, Annexure P The FIR in question was lodged by complainant the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se ch is apparent from Annexure P-3. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22510-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.07.2025 ....Petitioners ....Respondents RAJESH BHARDWAJ , Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom , Annexure P-3. in question was lodged by complainant-respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se . On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of tation Sadar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on respondent No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved their inter se . On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question and all may be quashed in the interest of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.28 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22510- 3. This Court vide order dated before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistra report. 4. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurdaspur has sent reports dated annexed photocopy of the statements of respondent No.2 and the petitioner Jagdeep Singh dated Magistrate First Class, genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there are only two accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused have been declared proclaimed offender nor they are involved any other case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the prese accepted. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. 7. Status report by way of affidavit of Superintendent of Police, on record. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by -2025 (O&M) This Court vide order dated 05.05.2025 before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistra In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurdaspur has sent reports dated 31.05.2025/05.06.2025 annexed photocopy of the statements of respondent No.2 and the petitioner, namely, Devinder Singh dated dated 27.05.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon has concluded in its report that the comprom genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there are only two accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused have been declared imed offender nor they are involved any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the prese Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if the present FIR is quashed. Status report by way of affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Raikot, District Ludhiana I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, -2- 05.05.2025 directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also directed to send its In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 31.05.2025/05.06.2025. With the reports, he has annexed photocopy of the statements of respondent No.2- complainant Surjit Singh dated 26.05.2025 and statement of ASI . On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial has concluded in its report that the compromise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there are only two accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused have been declared imed offender nor they are involved any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered against the petitioners quashed and as such the present petition is liable to be Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if Status report by way of affidavit of Harjinder Singh, PPS, Deputy hiana (Rural) filed in Court is taken I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon. directed the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as contended te was also directed to send its In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, . With the reports, he has Surjit Singh and statement of ASI . On the basis of the statements, learned Judicial ise is genuine, voluntarily and out of free will. It has been mentioned in the report that there are only two accused in the present case i.e. the present petitioners. It is further mentioned in the report that neither the accused have been declared Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and have decided to get the FIR registered nt petition is liable to be Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also pleaded no objection, if Singh, PPS, Deputy filed in Court is taken I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.28 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22510- 9. A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, 2023. 10. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punj RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. 11. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in Haryana vs Bhajan Lal as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised th 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. In power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be -2025 (O&M) A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would show that the High Court 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 tiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution 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 others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 followed by this Court in Full Bench Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punj have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “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. In power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be -3- A bare perusal of statutory provisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik would show that the High Court 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 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and followed by this Court in Full Bench Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the FIR in State of , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be us: 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 Nagrik would show that the High Court 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 is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the BNS, Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab B.S.Joshi and others vs State of Haryana and followed by this Court in Full Bench ab and another, 2007(3) have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled State of Punjab issue and State of , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be us: 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 herent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.28 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22510- 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 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 case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such p 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 offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre 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 dispute 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the 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 complet 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 -2025 (O&M) 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 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 fender 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 offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-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 dispute 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the 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 -4- 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 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 case and no category can be prescribed. However, before ower, 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 fender 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 offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 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 personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High 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 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 e 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 to abuse of process of law despite settlement and 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 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 case and no category can be prescribed. However, before ower, 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 fender 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 offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 dominatingly 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 s 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 criminal proceedings if in its view, because of 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 e 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 to abuse of process of law despite settlement and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.28 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22510- 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 affirma the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 12. Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered into a compromise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which i Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural proceedings arising there of compromise Annexure P 14. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition sta July 24, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) 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 affirma the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered omise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise Annexure P-3. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below. Petition stands allowed. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- 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 jurisdiction to quash the Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered omise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the s primarily the object of the legislature enacting under In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural and all the subsequent are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to tive, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the Applying the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and this High Court it is apparent that when the parties have entered omise, in the nature of cases as prescribed then continuation of the proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the s primarily the object of the legislature enacting under In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.153, dated 15.12.2024 registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 (Sections 117(1), 118(2) of BNS added later on) and all the subsequent are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, on the basis Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) TRIPTI SAINI 2025.07.28 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document