The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M No.431 o.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE JAB AND HARYANA AT THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH(cid:1) CHANDIGARH 129+261 (cid:1) Amandeep Singh Singh Rania and others CRM-M Date of De M No.4313 of 2025 (O&M) e of Decision:01.04.2025 ... Petitioners Versus (cid:1) State of Punjab and another s(cid:1) ... Respondents CORAM : HON
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT AMIT KUMAR Present: Ms for the petitioners. for t s. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Pu Mr. G, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate Mr. for respondent No.2. for r *** *** (cid:1) NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. (ORAL) CRM-12445-202 2025 ed for. Application is allowed as prayed for App Certified copy of judgment dated Cert the dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge, S dge, Special Court-cum-Additional D - nal District & Sessions Judge-cum- Fast Track Cour Court exclusively dealing with rape n on h rape cases, Ferozepur is taken on record thereby t reby three accused namely Bachittar urjit chittar Singh (father-in-law), Surjit Kaur (mother-in in-law) and Navdeep Singh (husba f the (husband) have been acquitted of the charges framed a med against them. CRM-M-4313- -2025 1. The present petition has been fil The nder een filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of B 8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh FIR a Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.157 dated 19 19.11.2021 registered under Sectio , 323 Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 506, 323 and 149 IPC (Se C (Sections 379-B, 120-B and 201 IP owry 201 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.431 o.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -2- Prohibition Act w Act were added later on) (Annexure uent exure P-1) and all other subsequent proceedings arisi s arising therefrom on the basis of 2024 is of compromise dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) e ) executed between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear total itioners submits that there are total seven accused in sed in the FIR and out of them, th hittar m, three accused namely Bachittar Singh (father-in in-law), Surjit Kaur (mother ingh other-in-law) and Navdeep Singh (husband) have b have been acquitted by the Court of - urt of learned Judge, Special Court- cum-Additional ional District & Sessions Judge-cum ively cum-Fast Track Court exclusively dealing with rap th rape cases, Ferozepur vide judgm the judgment dated 16.01.2025 and the present petition i ition is being filed on behalf of remain remaining four accused. 3. Learned counsel for the parties hav Lear FIR ies have stated that the present FIR may be quashed a ashed as the parties have amicably sett ly settled the dispute. 4. During the course of preliminary Duri was inary hearing, the trial Court was directed to record record the statements of all the concer o the concerned parties, with regard to the genuineness and ss and validity of the compromise by th e by this Court. 5. In compliance thereof, report dat In c rned rt dated 18.02.2025 from learned Judicial Magistr agistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur has b rned has been received through learned District and Sess d Sessions Judge, Ferozepur with state hich, h statements of the parties, in which, it has been menti mentioned that the compromise is ge ndue e is genuine and there was no undue influence or coer r coercion from any side. 6. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Cou The vs. is Court in case Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab njab and another, 2007(3) RCR ( n'ble CR (Criminal) 1052 and Hon'ble Division Bench ench of this Court in case Sube Sin of e Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and nd another, 2013(4) RCR (Cr (Criminal) 102 observed that that compounding of ing of offence can be allowed ev uring ed even after conviction, during PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.431 o.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -3- proceedings of th s of the appeal against conviction pen nd in on pending in Sessions Court and in case of involving olving non-compoundable offence. 7. An identical question came to be An reme to be decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Gia Gian Singh Versus State of Punja CR unjab and another, 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 ) 543. Having interpreted the relevan d as relevant provisions, it was ruled as under:- be from the above discussion can be 57. The position that emerges from “57. of the High Court in quashing a a sum summarised thus: the power of th or complaint in exercise of its its crim criminal proceeding or FIR or ven and different from the power given inherent jurisdiction is distinct and inhe unding the offences under Section ion to a to a criminal court for compoundi wer is of wide plenitude with no no 320 320 of the Code. Inherent power the to be exercised in accord with the statutory limitation but it has to be statu wer viz; (i) to secure the ends of of guid guideline engrafted in such power f the process of any Court. In what hat justi justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the or inal proceeding or complaint or cases power to quash the crimina case led he offender and victim have settled F.I.R. may be exercised where the o F.I.R he facts and circumstances of each ch their their dispute would depend on the fa ise escribed. However, before exercise case and no category can be prescri case ure must have due regard to the nature of such power, the High Court must of su ous and serious offences of mental tal and and gravity of the crime. Heinous a be der, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be depravity or offences like murder, depr the e victim or victim's family and the fittingly quashed even though the vi fittin e. Such offences are not private in in offen offender have settled the dispute. Su ny pact on society. Similarly, any nature and have serious impact natu the m and offender in relation to the compromise between the victim an com like Prevention of Corruption Act Act offen offences under special statutes like or quashing criminal proceedings ngs or t or the offences for any basis for q ing the criminal cases having ut involving such offences. But invo inatingly civil flavour stand on on over overwhelmingly and pre-dominati ses of quashing, particularly the the diffe different footing for the purposes vil, rcial, financial, mercantile, civil, offences arising from commercial offen tions or the offences arising out of t of part partnership or such like transaction c. or the family disputes where the the matr matrimony relating to dowry etc. or ties ersonnel in nature and the parties wrong is basically private or perso wro te. In this category of cases, High igh have have resolved their entire dispute. I ceedings if in its view, because of of Cou Court may quash criminal proceed of fender and victim, the possibility of the compromise between the offende the and continuation of criminal case ase conv conviction is remote and bleak and ression and prejudice and extreme me wou would put accused to great oppress nal him by not quashing the criminal injustice would be caused to him inju ettlement and compromise with the the case case despite full and complete settle h Court must consider whether it r it victi victim. In other words, the High C ue the interest of justice to continue would be unfair or contrary to the wou nal or continuation of the criminal with the criminal proceeding or with PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.431 o.4313 of 2025 (O&M) -4- proceeding would tantamount to ab proc settl settlement and compromise betwee and whether to secure the ends of and criminal case is put to an end an crim ques question(s) is in affirmative, the Hi its jurisdiction to quash the criminal its ju ite to abuse of process of law despite tween the victim and wrongdoer oer hat s of justice, it is appropriate that ove d and if the answer to the above hin e High Court shall be well within inal proceeding.” 8. The same view has been reiterated The case iterated by the Apex Court in case Narinder Singh ngh and others Vs. State of Punja CR unjab and another, 2014(2) RCR ) 482. (Criminal) 482. 9. Having regard to the contentions of Hav rties ons of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that t that both the parties to the litigation mise gation have entered into compromise and on that basi t basis, the present petition under Se been der Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashin uashing the present FIR. The compro with ompromise has been arrived at with the intervention ntion of the respectables and family have amily members and the parties have decided to keep h keep harmony between them and to liv ence, d to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the e in the interest of justice that parties a e the arties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreove reover, learned counsel for the partie w of parties are ad idem that, in view of the settlement of ent of disputes between the parties, th es to ties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in th d in this context. 10. In view of above, the instant petiti In v ntly, t petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FI FIR No.157 dated 19.11.2021 reg A, 21 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 342, 506, 3 506, 323 and 149 IPC (Sections 379 and ns 379-B, 120-B and 201 IPC and Section 4 of the of the Dowry Prohibition Act were other were added later on) and all other consequential pro tial proceedings arising therefrom are basis m are hereby quashed, on the basis of compromise, q mise, qua the petitioners only. April 01, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.03 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh