CRM-M-72394-2025 ! ""# AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS JASVEER SINGH BRAR $ %&$ '( ' ) ***** ! " ! ##### ( ' )+ , -./ $ " !% &" '( )* !+",-.. /0! . - 1 - !2 % 2, 34/$$/5/- 063 56 50$50)/05 72 0 ! ! 8- &% " $3*5 - 2 !29 - % - - //$/5' :(;%% - 3/*/) ' : 0( & ! /*$/)' :5( VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 2. - ; % < ;! = !% % /3/5//&! '>( - & !; - $/64$)$22; - &! > <&%8 ---&" % " ? % ;! ;; -&": - ! 1 &1 %" % ; !% % % Jasvir vs. Balvir Singh & Ors. ; > <&%2%2 - $6/6// ! - - - ! ! % < 8 %" % &" &% . - - - % - !% - ! - @03%22@ 3/6/$ ! %% &/$ ! ! %;!%%" %- ! - & . & !% ; ! ;; % ! " ; ! ! % < A &= & %%" % ;!; %! "8 % %%- % % -% /0/*/$0/*/$ $6$$/$ ; . - % ;! !% %; % " 0//3/$ ; - ! &" 2% 2 ! %%" % !! VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 0 % - % ! -- &% " ; -!% & & !%;!% - % < %! " %% - !% - ! % 0 7 ; ; ! &%! & ;& % &%" %7!& -; !! !! ;%% ; " 5 $/) & ! %2!9 %- - , *5 0/$/% : ! B1. There are only five persons namely Amarjit Singh, Jaskaran Singh, Tejinder Singh, Sukhpreet Singh and Karamjit Kaur, involved as accused in the dispute. 2. There is only one complainant/victim namely Jasveer Singh Brar. 3. All the accused and complainant/victim are party to the compromise and they have signed the same. 4. No affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. 5. No accused has been declared offender/person in the complaint in question. as proclaimed. 6. The compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue influence. VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 5 7. One other aspect relevant to the present case is that in para no.3 of the compromise Ex.C1, as per compromise effected between the parties, it has been mentioned that underground pipes have been installed by the Gram Panchayat of village Dagru in the Government drains for the drainage of residential house of first party and in future, the second party will not demolish both the Government drains built in front of house of first party which have been installed by Gram Panchayat of village Dagru about 30/40 years ago and second party will not block the underground pipes installed in both the government drains and will not create any obstruction for the drainage of dirty water. In this complaint, charge against the accused was framed under Sections 427, 431, 432, 506 гread with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of the Public Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1987, for committing mischief by wrongfully demolishing the Government water drain built in front of house of complainant, misappropriation of bricks laid down by Government and causing damage to the Government road and causing loss above the value of ₹50/<; committing mischief by doing the above said act with rendering the Government road impassable for traveling and moving of the general public at large and for conveying of the property: committing mischief by demolishing the Government water drain built in front of the house of complainant knowing it likely to cause an inundation or obstruction to public drainage: committing criminal intimidation by threatening the complainant and his wife; causing damage to the public property. So. compromise between the parties appears to be genuine and really burying the hatchet between parties with regard to prevention of obstruction in public drainage system and damage to the public property in this complaint.” VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 ) 5. " appear on behalf of the respondent and reiterate the settlement and their concurrence to the quashing of the FIR alongwith all the other consequential proceedings. & % - - : ! ; 5* ! 2 ! 2 % ; ? &" Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Parbatbhai Aahir @ ParbatbhaiBhimsinhbhaiKarmur and others versus State of Gujarat and another” (2017) 9 SCC 641’ wherein it was held as under: 16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 6 the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance. 6 > C&% 2 % C ! ; & - ? % ; ! = :& %" ! !! ! 1 - !; ; % &% 2 1D7 ; !% - * @ !& ! %% ; -% ! -! % - ! ! ; )* !+,/0 7 &% ! ! % 2! 9 % - - & !! % %"&; - ; " " VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 * & , $ ! % ;%% - ! % &%- ;%%; .% , 0 5 %" ; "%" ! % "&; . % "&; . ; %&% - - % %"7 % % !! -&% % %- % 1 " / ! E %% %- - - ;%% & - 1%" - ! !! '( 1 & & ; %& . - %% ! " 7 % & . - !2 E - 2 ! - ; % %.%" ! ; % %-&% ; % %"% ; ! = % 3 7 ; ! & &" % 2! 9 % - - -- % %% ; &" > <&%2 &= %% ; VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document $0$01"23!0""4 3 ! 2 % 2 , 34/ $$/5/ - 0635650$50)/0572 0 ! ! 8- &% " $3*5 - 2 ! 29 - % - - //$/5' :( ;%% - 3/*/) ' : 0( %% 1 % - -! -5-67895 ; ! /*$/)' :5(> ;; %& &= " ! "#$%&''" ( )* " +,; !; ! ! ! " ! %% ; ,( ' )/ &+""# Vishal Sharma A. -4 F4, A &% F4, VISHAL SHARMA 2026.04.15 11:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

AMARJIT SINGH AND OTHERS v. JASVEER SINGH BRAR

Judgment text