CHANPREET SINGH & Anr. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan S. Rai, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Akash Rana, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** SUMEET GOEL , J. ORAL

#1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

#2. On 16.04.2026, the following order was passed: “This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.70 dated 15.04.2025 registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023, at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise deed dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the parties have settled their differences amicably and effected a compromise, which is annexed as Annexure P-2. CRM-M-20105-2026 2 Notice of motion. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Aakash Rana, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and filed Power of Attorney. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has admitted the factum of compromise effected between the parties. The parties and Investigating Officer are directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on the date fixed before it or any other date as per its convenience or on request of the parties for getting their statements recorded with regard to the compromise but not later than 21.05.2026. The Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall submit the report on or before the next date of hearing. The report be forwarded to this Court specifying the following:- 1. The number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/proclaimed persons, in the case; 2. The name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. The stage of trial/proceedings pending; 4. If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. 5. Whether any other criminal case pending against the accused. Report of Illaqa Magistrate/ Trial Court be awaited for 21.07.2026.”

#3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 05.06.2026 from Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana has been received, which is taken on record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:- “1. The number of accused arraigned in the FIR and how many have appeared before it and have made statements and whether any accused is absconding/proclaimed persons, in the case; 2. The name of the complainant and injured/aggrieved and whether all of them have appeared and made their statements in support of the compromise; 3. The stage of trial/proceedings pending; 4. If the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. 5. Whether any other criminal accused case pending against the accused Ans. (1) As per the statements of the parties and the Investigating Officer, there are only two accused namely (1) Amarpreet Kaur and (2) Chanpreet Singh arrayed in the present FIR. Both the accused have appeared before this Court and got their statements recorded. None of the accused has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender/Proclaimed Person and no accused is absconding. Ans. (2) As per the statements of the parties and the Investigating Officer, there is one complainant namely Harpreet Singh and one injured person namely Manjot Singh. Both have appeared before this Court and got their statements recorded in support of the compromise. Ans. (3) The present case is pending for prosecution evidence. Ans. (4) On the basis of the statements of the parties, the compromise is genuine, voluntary and out of free will of the parties. CRM-M-20105-2026 3 Ans. (5) As per the statement of the Investigating Officer, no other criminal case/FIR is pending against the accused persons.”

#4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

#5. Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).

#6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

#7. This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021). The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is : (a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code. (b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial CRM-M-20105-2026 4 transactions or arising out matrimonial relationship or family disputes. (d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. (e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc. (f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation. (g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise. The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well. CRM-M-20105-2026 5

#8. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :- (i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice. The offences alleged are primarily of private nature. (ii) (iii) The parties have compromised. (iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be (v) voluntary in its nature. Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

#9. Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.70 dated 15.04.2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 304, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated

16.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed.

#10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

21.07.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No