273. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RAJAT STATE OF UT CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. Section 528 FIR No.71, dated A of IPC, at Police Station P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated parties. 2. may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus STATE OF UT CHD. AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manish Bansal, Addl. PP. U.T., Chandigarh. Mr. Avneet Chopra, Advocate for Mr. Shivani Sahni, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ------ NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , dated 15.06.2024, registered under Section , at Police Station Women Cell, Sector 17, Chandigarh and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21869-2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025 .... Petitioner .... Respondents NAMIT KUMAR , Addl. PP. U.T., Chandigarh. Avneet Chopra, Advocate for The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of , registered under Sections 148, 406 and 498- Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis .03.2025 (Annexure P-2) executed between the d counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR may be quashed as the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under for quashing of - (Annexure and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis 2) executed between the d counsel for the parties submits that the present FIR HIMANSHU 2025.08.27 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21869 3. directed to record the statements of the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. 4. Judicial Magistrate learned District parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. 5. Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in cases involving non 6. Court in case RCR (Criminal) 543 ruled as under: 21869-2025 During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record the statements of all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. In compliance thereof, report dated Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh learned District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in Sessions Court and in cases involving non-compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gian Singh Versus State of Pun RCR (Criminal) 543. Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal - 2 - During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was all the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and validity of the compromise by this Court. pliance thereof, report dated 16.05.2025 from learned Class, Chandigarh, has been received through Chandigarh, with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in case Kulwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 observed that compounding of offence can be allowed even after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in compoundable offence. An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another, 2012(4) . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was 57. 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 During the course of preliminary hearing, the trial Court was all the concerned parties, with regard to .05.2025 from learned , has been received through , with statements of the parties, in which, it has been mentioned that the compromise is genuine and Kulwinder Singh and Sube Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102 after conviction, during proceedings of the appeal against conviction pending in An identical question came to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme jab and another, 2012(4) . Having interpreted the relevant provisions, it was 57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal HIMANSHU 2025.08.27 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21869 21869-2025 court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude w 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 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 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 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, mercant 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may - 3 - 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 ch 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 for any basis for ing 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 disputes where the wrong is basically private or personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their category of cases, High Court may court for compounding the offences under Section 320 ith 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 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 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 ch 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 for any basis for ing criminal proceedings involving such offences. - dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences ile, 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 personnel in nature and the parties have resolved their category of cases, High Court may HIMANSHU 2025.08.27 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21869 7. Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482 8. parties and the fact that both the parties to the compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section Code of Criminal Procedure The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and f 21869-2025 quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case 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 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 wrongdoer and wh justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) RCR (Criminal) 482. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep - 4 - quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that both the parties to the litigation have entered into compromise and on that basis, the present petition under Section 482 of has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the amily members and the parties have decided to keep quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and would put 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 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 ether 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 affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and others Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014(2) Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the litigation have entered into 482 of has been filed for quashing the present FIR. The compromise has been arrived at with the intervention of the HIMANSHU 2025.08.27 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-21869 harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned couns settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 9. the impugned 406 and 498 Chandigarh (Annexure P therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of petitioner only. 27.08.2025 himanshu 21869-2025 harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the parties are settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FIR No.71, dated 15.06.2024, registered under Sections 148, 406 and 498-A of IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of only. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: - 5 - harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. el for the parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, d 15.06.2024, registered under Sections 148, A of IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Sector 17, and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, qua the (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No harmony between them and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter. that, in view of the settlement of disputes between the parties, the present petition deserves to In view of above, the instant petition is allowed. Consequently, d 15.06.2024, registered under Sections 148, A of IPC, at Police Station Women Cell, Sector 17, and all other consequential proceedings arising compromise, qua the HIMANSHU 2025.08.27 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document