CRM-M-21065 [332] Davinder Singh State of Punjab and Coram : Present: RAJESH BHARDWAJ 1. No.0106, registered at along with all consequential proceedings arising t compromise dated 2. the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of finally the parties arrived at settlement and dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of proceedings would and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequent and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest 21065-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- Date of Decision : Davinder Singh versus State of Punjab and another HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate **** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR dated 26.12.2023, under Sections egistered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot with all consequential proceedings arising t compromise dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P FIR in question was filed by complainant the trial started thereon. However, with the intervention of finally the parties arrived at settlement and dispute, which is apparent from Compromise Deed, annexed 2. 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 and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequent and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -21065-2025 Date of Decision : 21.08.2025 …Petitioner ….Respondents RAJESH BHARDWAJ for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. Advocate for respondent No.2. Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR , under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, 1860, Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of (Annexure P-2). 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 2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court and thus, the FIR in question along with all consequent and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice. 1 Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR 1860, (Annexure P-1) herefrom on the basis of and respectables, inter se as Annexure invoking the these the Court subsequent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21065 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. Faridkot has sent the report dated he has annexed the separate original statements of No.2, namely, Singh recorde ASI Gurmej 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 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, 6. 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 consider compounding of the offences under the 21065-2025 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 Judicial Ma has sent the report dated 21.02.2025 he has annexed the separate original statements of No.2, namely, Charnjit Singhk and accused/petitioner, recorded on 20.05.2025. He has also annexed the original statement of Gurmej Singh recorded on 20.05.2025 learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot that the compromise effected between the free will without any pressure or misrepresentation. It has further been mentioned that as per the statement of ASI Gurmej Singh accused in the present FIR and none of the parties have been declared laimed 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 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. This Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 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, 21.02.2025 to this Court. With the report, he has annexed the separate original statements of complainant/respondent and accused/petitioner, namely, Davinder also annexed the original statement of 20.05.2025. On the basis of the statements, Faridkot has concluded in the report between the parties is genuine and with their pressure or misrepresentation. It has further been ASI Gurmej 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 record and the report sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S. 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 B.N.S.S. ation, which prescribes the procedure for Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2 the parties to statements, Magistrate was also Class, the report, complainant/respondent Davinder also annexed the original statement of . On the basis of the statements, has concluded in the report 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. prescribes the procedure for RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21065 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 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 reads as under: 21065-2025 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 61 of the judgment reads as under:- “61. The position that emerges from the above summarised thus: the power of the High criminal proceeding or FIR or 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 exercised in accord with the engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends to prevent abuse of the process of any to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled 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 me 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 (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 complaint in exercise of its inherent and different from the power given to a compounding the offences under Section 320 of Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline ngrafted 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 proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be 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 the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental 3 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 complaint in exercise of its inherent and different from the power given to a compounding the offences under Section 320 of Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory guideline of justice, or (ii) Court. In what cases power proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be their dispute on the facts and circumstances of each case and no can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such the High Court must have due regard to the nature and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21065 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 21065-2025 depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender relation to the offences under special statutes like Corruption Act or the offences committed by working in that capacity, etc; cannot quashing criminal proceedings criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre 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 category of cases, the High Court may if in its view, because of the compromise the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the a 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 unf interest of justice to continue with the 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 it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the well within its jurisdiction to quash the 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 depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot 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. imilarly, any compromise between the victim and offender 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 overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil a different footing for the purposes of quashing, the offences arising from commercial, financial, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and conviction is remote and bleak and criminal case would put the accused to great prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to 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 proceeding would tantamount to abuse despite settlement and compromise between the the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, 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 criminal proceeding.” 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 4 be and the not private in imilarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in Prevention of public servants while provide for any basis for involving such offences. But the dominatingly civil a different footing for the purposes of quashing, the offences arising from commercial, financial, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in this proceedings between the offender and conviction is remote and bleak and ccused to great prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words,the High contrary to the criminal proceeding or proceeding would tantamount to abuse despite settlement and compromise between the secure the ends of justice, answer High Court shall be plethora parties have proceedings would be nd accepting the would be securing the ends of RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21065 justice, which is primarily the object of the Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 10. within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0106, dated 26.12.2023, under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P 1) along quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of P-2). Needless to say that the parties shall remain conditions of the compromise and their below. 11. 21.08.2025 ‘R. Sharma' 21065-2025 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 within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and FIR No.0106, dated 26.12.2023, under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P 1) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of Needless to say that the parties shall remain conditions of the compromise and their statements re Petition stands allowed. 21.08.2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under 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.0106, dated 26.12.2023, under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P nsequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure 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 legislature enacting under falls hence, FIR No.0106, dated 26.12.2023, under Sections 279, 337 and 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (Annexure P- hereby dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure bound by the terms and corded before the Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.25 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document