CRM-M-21755-2025 1 347 AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21755-2025 Date of Decision:30.07.2025 Chhinderpal @ Chhindi & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners (Through video conferencing). Mr. Raghunath Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab with ASI, Sukhpal Singh. *** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (ORAL) 1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.137 dated 22.11.2022, under Sections 452, 324, 34 (Sections 411 & 473 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Khuhian Sarwar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 03.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). 2. FIR in question was got registered 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 dispute, which is apparent from Compromise, annexed as Annexure P-2. 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 and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21755-2025 2 therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 3. Status report dated 29.07.2025 has been filed by the State by way of affidavit of Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Brar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Abohar, District Fazilka, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the petitioners. 4. This Court vide order dated 25.04.2025 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 report. 5. In pursuance to the same, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar has sent the report dated 20.05.2025 to this Court. With the report learned JMIC, Abohar has also annexed the original joint statements of respondent No.2 namely, Angrej Singh (complainant), respondent No.3- Paramjit Kaur (injured); joint statements of petitioner No.1 Chhinderpal Singh @ Chhindi, petitioner No.2 Rangpal Singh @ Rangi and petitioner No.3 Gurwinder Singh @ Gindi, recorded on 06.05.2025 and statement of HC, Sunil Kumar, recorded 07.05.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Abohar has concluded in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. It has been further mentioned therein that as per the statement of IO, there were total 04 accused but the fourth accused namely Kakan was juvenile and his inquiry report was presented on dated 26.09.2023 before the Ld. Principal Juvenile Justice Board, Fazilka and after that he was released on probation on dated 22.08.2024. It has been further mentioned therein that petitioner No.1 Chhinderpal Singh @ Chhindi is involved in 07 other cases, petitioner No.2 Rangpal Singh @ Rangi is involved in 04 other cases and petitioner No.3 Gurwinder Singh @ Gindi is involved in other 05 PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21755-2025 3 cases. None of the accused was declared proclaimed offender in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned JMIC, Abohar. 7. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS 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 BNSS is equally relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 8. 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 case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the proposition involved in the present case and settled the law. 9. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of 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 the FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of the judgment reads as under:- “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 PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21755-2025 4 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 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 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 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 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 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 criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21755-2025 5 question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. 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 FIR would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of BNSS. 11. 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.137 dated 22.11.2022, under Sections 452, 324, 34 (Sections 411 & 473 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Khuhian Sarwar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (Annexure P-1), along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise. 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. 12. Petition stands allowed. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 30.07.2025 JUDGE Parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable :Yes/No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.08 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document