IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 Budh Singh and others ...Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG Punjab. Mr. Amrinder S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. This is the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of complaint bearing No. COMI No.79/2020 titled as ‘Amarjit Kaur @ Navneet Kaur Vs. Budh Singh and others’ under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the summoning order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot, on the basis of compromise dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there were total 04 accused in the present case, out of which one accused/Sukhdev Singh has expired, therefore, the present petition has been filed by 03 persons only. 3. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 01.05.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 2 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for. 4. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot vide Memo No. 386 dated 07.05.2025. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:- “(1) There are total four accused persons in the present complaint namely (1) Budh Singh, (2) Harjit Singh Lamberdar, (3) Bikramjeet Singh Lamberdar and (4) Sukhdev Singh (since expired and copy of his death certificate has been placed on record). (2) None of the accused has been not declared as proclaimed offender in the present complaint. (3) From the statement of the parties, as recorded in the Court, the compromise appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. (4) Accused Budh Singh and Harjit Singh are not involed in any other FIR, whereas accused Bikramjit Singh Lamberdar has been convicted in FIR No.51 dated 17.05.2020, u/s 326/323/34 IPC, PS Sadar Faridkot and is currently undergoing his sentence.”. 5. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of the compromise amongst the parties and does not have any serious objection to the resolution of the dispute amongst the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 reiterates the settlement and his concurrence to the FIR and all the other consequential proceedings being quashed. 7. The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of “Kulwinder Singh MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 3 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) and others versus State of Punjab and another” reported as (Punjab and Haryana High Court) : 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 has been observed as under : ''(28) To conclude, it can safely be said that there can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The only principle that can be laid down is the one which has been incorporated in the Section itself, i.e., "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice". (29) In Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney v. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Ors., Hon'ble Krishna Iyer, J. aptly summoned up the essence of compromise in the following words: “The finest hour of justice arrives propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship of reunion.” (30) The power to do complete justice is the very essence of every judicial justice dispensation system. It cannot be diluted by distorted perceptions and is not a slave to anything, except to the caution and circumspection, the standards of which the Court sets before it, in exercise of such plenary and unfettered power inherently vested in it while donning the cloak of compassion to achieve the ends of justice. (31) No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C., or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (32) The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is "finest hour MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 4 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) of justice". Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation. (33) The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice. (34) The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court. There can neither be an exhaustive list nor the defined para-meters to enable a High Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution. The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint. The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order. The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society. Resolution of a dispute by way of a MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 5 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery. 8. The legal principles as laid down for quashing of the judgment were also approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and another,(2012)10 SCC303'. Still further, the broad principles for exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641'. 9. It is evident that in view of the amicable resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings. The furtherance of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time and there appears to be no chances of conviction. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of 'Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834', that the matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or in the matter in which the nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted as under:- “19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 6 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 11. The following relevant factors emerge from perusal of the case as well as the subsequent developments supplementing a case for invocation of the powers under Section 528 the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:- i) The complaint in question pertains to the year 2020 and pertains to property dispute. ii) The petitioners are of 79, 68 and 57 years of age respectively and continued criminal incarceration is likely to cause unnecessary hardship and affect their health and well being due to their old age. iii) The parties are relatives and continuation of the proceedings likely to spoil the peaceful atmosphere between them. iv) The offence in question cannot be said to be heinous or as an offence that would be shocking to the society or public at large. It can also not be termed as one shocking to the conscience of the Court; MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 7 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) v) Continuation of the proceedings and forcing the parties to undergo rigours of criminal proceedings is not likely to sub- serve any large public interest; vi) The proceedings are likely to end in futility for want of parties to support the case of the prosecution; vii) No larger public purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings; viii) Parties do not have indulged in any such or similar case during the pendency of the complaint in question. ix) The complainant is not likely to support the case of the prosecution. Continuation of the proceedings is likely to be a waste of judicial time. The object of law is well served when the parties resolve their differences and choose to peacefully co-exist and live in harmony. 12. In view of the report of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 10 SCC 303, as well as Ramgopal And Another Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and also by the Full Bench of this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the instant petition is allowed. The aforesaid complaint bearing No. COMI No.79/2020 titled as ‘Amarjit Kaur @ Navneet Kaur Vs. Budh Singh and others’ under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as the summoning order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridkot and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed qua the petitioners in view of the compromise dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure P-3). However, the same would be subject to MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document 8 284 CRM-M-22998-2025 (O&M) payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by each petitioner with the “Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund, Account No.001934001000589, Punjab State Co-op. Bank, IFSC: TPSC0000019”, within two months from receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Petition is allowed. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 23.09.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.09.25 11:58 I am the author of this document