26.08.2025 Sunita and ta and others v. State of Pun of Punjab and another
Case Details
CRM-M-20332 20332-2025 1 [374] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CRM-M- Date of De -20332-2025 of Decision : 26.08.2025 Sunita and ta and others …Petitioners versus State of Pun of Punjab and another ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Ms. Dolli Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. njab. Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate for for respondent No.2. **** RAJESH B ESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been file en filed praying for quashing of FI of FIR No.0043, dated 24.02.2024, under Section ections 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 o 149 of IPC, 1860 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 o 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered tered at Police Stat e Station Jandiala, District Amritsar R ritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) along wi with all consequ nsequential proceedings arising there therefrom on the basis of compromis promise dated 24.09 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-2). 2.
Legal Reasoning
FIR in question was filed by c d by complainant-respondent No.2 an and the trial st rial started thereon. However, with with the intervention of respectable ctables, finally the ly the parties arrived at settlement ment and they resolved their inter ter se dispute, wh te, which is apparent from Comprom mpromise Deed, annexed as Annexu nnexure P-2. On th On the basis of the compromise, t ise, the petitioners are invoking th ing the inherent p ent power of this Court by pray praying that continuation of thes these proceeding eedings would be a futile exercise and Court e and an abuse of process of the Court RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 20332-2025 2 and thus, t thus, the FIR in question along with g with all consequent and subseque sequent proceeding eedings arising therefrom may be quas e quashed in the interest of justice. 3. This Court vide order dated ated 24.07.2025 directed the parties arties to appear befo ar before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistr agistrate for recording their statement tements, as contende ntended before the Court, and the trial he trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was als as also directed to ted to send its report. 4. In pursuance to the same, lear e, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Clas Class, Amritsar, itsar, has sent the report dated 14.08.20 4.08.2025 to this Court. With the repor e report, he has ann as annexed the separate original state l statements of complainant/responde pondent No.2, name , namely, Jaspal Singh and accused/pe sed/petitioners, namely, Sunita, Jobanj Jobanjit Singh, Vik h, Vikramjit Singh, Dilsher Singh, S gh, Sahil, Baba and Jobanpreet Sing t Singh recorded on ded on 04.08.2025. He has also annex annexed the original statement of AS t of ASI Hardial Sin ial Singh recorded on 08.08.2025. . On the basis of the statement tements, learned Jud Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amr Amritsar, has concluded in the repo e report that the com the compromise effected between the en the parties is genuine and with the ith their free will w will without any pressure or misrep misrepresentation. It has further be er been mentioned ioned that as per the statement of AS ASI Hardial Singh, there is no oth no other accused in sed in the present FIR and none of ne of the parties have been declare declared proclaimed laimed offender in the present case. 5.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard learned counsel f unsel for the parties, perused the rec record and the rep he report sent by the learned Judicial M icial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. 6. A bare perusal of statutory p .N.S.S. tory provision of the 528 of B.N.S.S would show d show that the High Court may make make such orders, as may be necessar ecessary to give effe ve effect to any order under this Code Code or to prevent abuse of the proce process of any Cou y Court or otherwise to secure the end he ends of justice. Section 359 B.N.S.S .N.S.S. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 20332-2025 3 is equally ually relevant for consideration, wh n, which prescribes the procedure fo ure for compoundi ounding of the offences under the Bha Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 7. Keeping in view the nature of ure of offences allegedly committed an and the fact th fact that both the parties have ami e amicably settled their dispute, th ute, the continuatio nuation of criminal prosecution would would be a futile exercise. The Hon'b Hon'ble Supreme C eme Court in a number of cases inclu s including Narinder Singh and othe others Versus Sta s State of Punjab and another, 201 , 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S. Joshi an i and others vs vs State of Haryana and another (2 er (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 67 es 675 followed b wed by this Court in Full Bench case h case of Kulwinder Singh and othe others Vs. State o ate of Punjab and another, 2007(3 07(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with th with the propositio osition involved in the present case and and settled the law. 8. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme reme Court in Gian Singh vs State tate of Punjab and b and another (2012) 10 Supreme C me Court Cases 303 further dealt wi alt with the issue an ssue and the earlier law settled by the by the Supreme Court for quashing o shing of the FIR in IR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan La n Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Pa . Para 61 of the ju the judgment reads as under:- “61. The position that emerges rges from the above discussion can an be summarised thus: the power of th of the High Court in quashing a crimin iminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in int in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction tion is distinct and different from the p he power given to a criminal court f rt for compounding the offences under Se er Section 320 of the Code. Inherent pow power is of wide plenitude with no statuto atutory limitation but it has to be exercis ercised in accord with the guideline engra grafted in such power viz; (i) to secure t ure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent ab t abuse of the process of any Court. In wh n what cases power to quash the criminal inal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R m .R may be exercised where the offender der and victim have settled their dispu dispute would depend on the facts and and circumstances of each case and nd no category can be prescribed. Howe owever, before exercise of such power, er, the High Court must have due regard ard to the nature and gravity of the crim crime. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Heinous and serious offences of me rder, f mental depravity or offences like murder CRM-M-20332 20332-2025 4 rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittin fittingly quashed even though the victim tim or victim’s family and the offender der have settled the dispute. Such offenc ffences are not private in nature and have s ave serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between tween the victim and offender in relation tion to the offences under special statutes l tes like Prevention of Corruption Act or t t or the offences committed by public serva ervants while working in that capacity, e ty, etc; cannot provide for any basis for qu or quashing criminal proceedings involvi olving such offences. But the criminal c al cases having overwhelmingly and pr d pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on d on a different footing for the purposes oses of quashing, particularly the offence ences arising from commercial, financi ancial, mercantile, civil, partnership or s or such like transactions or the offenc ffences arising out of matrimony relating ting to dowry, etc. or the family disput isputes where the wrong is basically priva rivate or personal in nature and the parti parties have resolved their entire dispute spute. In this category of cases, the Hi e High Court may quash criminal proce roceedings if in its view, because of t of the compromise between the offende ender and the victim, the possibility lity of conviction is remote and bleak a ak and continuation of the criminal ca l case would put the accused to great o eat oppression and prejudice and extrem xtreme injustice would be caused to him by m by not quashing the criminal case desp despite full and complete settlement and and compromise with the victim. In oth other words,the High Court must cons consider whether it would be unfair air or contrary to the interest of justice to ce to continue with the criminal proceedi eeding or continuation of the criminal pro proceeding would tantamount to abuse use of process of law despite settlement a ent and compromise between the victim a im and the wrongdoer and whether to secu secure the ends of justice, it is appropria opriate that criminal case is put to an an end and if the answer to the abo above question(s) is in the affirmative, th ve, the High Court shall be well within thin its jurisdiction to quash the criminal p al proceeding.” 9. Applying the law settled by H by Hon'ble Supreme Court in pletho plethora of judgmen dgments and this High Court, it is ap t is apparent that when the parties hav have entered into ed into a compromise, then continuat ntinuation of the proceedings would b ould be merely an a ly an abuse of process of the Court an ourt and by allowing and accepting th ting the prayer of th r of the petitioners by quashing the ca the case would be securing the ends o ends of justice, wh e, which is primarily the object of ject of the legislature enacting und g under Section 528 on 528 of B.N.S.S. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20332 20332-2025 5 10. As a result, this Court finds th inds that the case in hand squarely fal falls within the in the ambit and parameters settled b ttled by judicial precedents and henc hence, FIR No.00 No.0043, dated 24.02.2024, under S er Sections 365, 342, 323, 148 and 14 and 149 of IPC, 186 C, 1860 and Sections 25, 54 and 59 nd 59 of Arms Act, 1959, registered tered at Police Stat e Station Jandiala, District Amritsar R ritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) along wi with all consequ nsequential proceedings arising there therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners ioners on the basis of compromise da ise dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P- -2). Needless t less to say that the parties shall r hall remain bound by the terms an ms and conditions itions of the compromise and their stat statements recorded before the Cou e Court below. 11. Petition stands allowed. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE 26.08.2025 .2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.08.28 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document