CRM-M-20332 [374] Sunita and others State of Punjab and Coram : Present: RAJESH BHARDWAJ 1. No.0043, IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 Police Station all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of dated 24.09.2024 2. the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are inherent power of this Court proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of 20332-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- Date of Decision : Sunita and others versus State of Punjab and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Ms. Dolli Sharma, Advocate Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. **** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR dated 24.02.2024, under Sections IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959 Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). FIR in question was filed by complainant the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of finally the parties arrived at settlement and they resolved dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed . 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 -20332-2025 Date of Decision : 26.08.2025 …Petitioners ….Respondents RAJESH BHARDWAJ for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. for respondent No.2. petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR , under Sections 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise FIR in question was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 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, annexed as Annexure . On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the by praying that continuation of these proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court 1 petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 of egistered at with compromise and ectables, inter se as Annexure invoking the these the Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequent and 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 rep 4. Amritsar, he has annexed the separate original statements of No.2, namely, Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Dilsher Singh, Sahil, Baba and Jobanpreet Singh recorded on Hardial Singh learned Judicial Magistrate Ist that the compromise effected free will without any mentioned that as per accused in the proclaimed 5. and the report sent by the learned 6. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be to give effect to any order under of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 20332-2025 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 Amritsar, has sent the report dated 14.08.2025 he has annexed the separate original statements of , namely, Jaspal Singh and accused/petitioner Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Dilsher Singh, Sahil, Baba and Jobanpreet Singh recorded on 04.08.2025. He has also annexed the original statement of ASI Hardial Singh recorded on 08.08.2025. On the basis of the statements, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and with their free will without any pressure or misrepresentation. It has further be mentioned that as per the statement of ASI 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 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. and thus, the FIR in question along 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 14.08.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the separate original statements of complainant/respondent and accused/petitioners, namely, Sunita, Jobanjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Dilsher Singh, Sahil, Baba and Jobanpreet Singh also annexed the original statement of ASI . On the basis of the statements, Amritsar, has concluded in the report between the parties is genuine and with their pressure or misrepresentation. It has further be ASI Hardial Singh, there is no other present FIR and none of the parties have been declared I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the rec Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. would show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary 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. 2 subsequent directed the parties to statements, Magistrate was also Class, the report, complainant/respondent Sunita, Jobanjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, Dilsher Singh, Sahil, Baba and Jobanpreet Singh also annexed the original statement of ASI . 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 other present FIR and none of the parties have been declared record 528 of B.N.S.S. necessary of the process Section 359 B.N.S.S. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 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 prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Supreme Court in a number of case 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 reads as under: 20332-2025 is equally relevant for consideration, which compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya San 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 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 power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 o is of wide plenitude with no statutory 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 cases power to quash the criminal 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 High Court must have due regard to the nature and Heinous and serious offences of mental 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 continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon'ble s 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 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 the of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In wh 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, 3 prescribes 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 Gian 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 and different from the 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 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 exercise of such power, the gravity of the crime. depravity or offences like murder, RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 9. of judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the entered into a compromise, then continuation of the merely an abuse of process of the Court and by prayer of the petitioners by quashing the case justice, which is primarily Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 20332-2025 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 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 transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. o 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 continue with the or continuation of the criminal proceedi 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 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. 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 such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre vil 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 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 desp 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 ) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its 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 into a compromise, 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 case would be securing the ends of the object of the legislature enacting under 4 be fittingly quashed even though the victim or offender have settled the dispute. Such offences in relation to 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, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences disputes nature and the parties this category of cases, the High proceedings if in its view, because of the the offender and the victim, the possibility of criminal case prejudice and extreme 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 ng 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 have proceedings would be allowing and accepting the would be securing the ends of legislature enacting under RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 10. within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0043, dated 24.02.2024, under S of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are petitioners on the basis of Needless to say that the parties shall remain conditions of the compromise and their below. 11. 26.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 20332-2025 As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0043, dated 24.02.2024, under S of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P Needless to say that the parties shall remain conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court Petition stands allowed. .08.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence, FIR No.0043, dated 24.02.2024, under Sections 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua compromise dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P- Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and statements recorded before the Court (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 falls hence, ections 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered at with the -2). bound by the terms and statements recorded before the Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document