CRM-M-19371 v. State of Punjab

Judgment

1. Instant petition has been filed prayi Insta praying for quashing of FIR No.21 219, dated 10.07.202

7.2023 registered under Sections tions 353, 186, 427 and 506 IP 06 IPC (Corresponding S ding Sections 132, 221, 324(4), 351 of of BNS) at Police Station City Tar ity Tarn Taran, District Ta trict Tarn Taran and subsequent proc t proceedings arising therefrom on th on the basis of comprom promise deed dated 17.06.2025, Ann , Annexure P-2.

The FIR in question was lodged by c The ed by complainant-respondent No.2 an o.2 and the investigation igation commenced thereon. Howe However, with the intervention o tion of respectables, fina s, finally the parties arrived at settleme ttlement and they resolved their inter s inter se dispute, which is ch is apparent from Annexure P-2. On . On the basis of the compromise, th ise, the petitioners are pr are praying that continuation of thes of these proceedings would be a futi a futile exercise and an a d an abuse of process of the Court and urt and thus, the FIR in question and a and all the subsequent p uent proceedings arising therefrom m rom may be quashed in the interest o terest of justice. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19371- -2026 (O&M) -2-

3. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2 This

9.04.2026 directed the parties to appe appear before the trial Co trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for record recording their statements, as contende ntended before the Court, Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magis Magistrate was also directed to send i send its report.

4. In pursuance to the same, learned In p ned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tar te, Tarn Taran has sent sent report dated 05.05.2026. Wit . With the report, she has annexe annexed photocopy of the of the statements of respondents No.2 No.2 and 3, namely, Jagjit Singh an ngh and Rupinder Singh @ ingh @ Rahul and petitioner, namely amely, Gurdev Singh dated 23.04.202

04.2026 and statement of ent of ASI Gurbhej Singh dated ated 23.04.2025. On the basis of th of the statements, learn learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, T trate, Tarn Taran has concluded in i d in its report that the co the compromise is genuine, voluntaril untarily and out of free will. It has bee as been mentioned in the in the report that there are only one accused in the present case i.e. th i.e. the present petitioner itioner. It is further mentioned in the r n the report that neither the accused sed has been declared pro ed proclaimed offender nor he is invol involved any other case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner h Lear oner has submitted that the parties hav ies have compromised the ed the matter amicably and have de ave decided to get the FIR registere gistered against the petiti petitioners quashed and as such the ch the present petition is liable to b le to be accepted.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Lear t No.2 has also pleaded no objection, ction, if the present FIR is FIR is quashed.

7. Status report by way of affidavit Statu idavit of Sukhbir Singh, PPS, Depu Deputy Superintendent o dent of Police, Sub-Division Tarn Ta arn Taran District Tarn Taran filed filed in Court is taken on en on record.

8. I have heard learned counsel for th I hav for the parties, perused the record an ord and the report sent by ent by learned Chief Judicial Magistra agistrate, Tarn Taran. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19371- -2026 (O&M) -3-

9. A bare perusal of statutory provisio A ba ovisions of the 528 of Bhartiya Nagr Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita anhita, 2023 would show that the High e High Court may make such orders, a rders, as may be necessary essary to give effect to any order unde r under this Code or to prevent abuse o abuse of the process of an of any Court or otherwise to secure secure the ends of justice. Section 35 ion 359 Bhartiya Nagrik agrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is eq is equally relevant for consideratio eration, which prescribes cribes the procedure for compounding unding of the offences under the BN e BNS,

10. Keeping in view the nature of offen Keep f offences allegedly committed and th and the fact that both the th the parties have amicably settled ettled their dispute, the continuation o ation of criminal prosecut cution would be a futile exercise. rcise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in urt in a number of cases cases including Narinder Singh and h and others Versus State of Punja Punjab and another, 201 er, 2014 (6) SCC 466, B.S.Joshi and i and others vs State of Haryana an na and another (2003) 4 003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675 foll followed by this Court in Full Benc ll Bench case of Kulwind lwinder Singh and others Vs. State State of Punjab and another, 2007(3 2007(3) RCR 1052 have d have dealt with the proposition involv involved in the present case and settle d settled the law.

11. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court i Ther ourt in Gian Singh vs State of Punja Punjab and another (201 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 30 ses 303 further dealt with the issue an sue and the earlier law se law settled by the Supreme Court for urt for quashing of the FIR in State o State of Haryana vs Bha Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 33 CC 335. Para 61 of the judgment read as under:- TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “61. The position that emerges fro “61. es from the above discussion can b can be summarised thus: the power of the H f the High Court in quashing a crimin criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in ex nt in exercise of its inherent jurisdictio sdiction is distinct and different from the po is dis power given to a criminal court fo ourt for compounding the offences under Se der Section 320 of the Code. Inhere Inherent CRM-M-19371- -2026 (O&M) -4- power is of wide plenitude with no s h no statutory limitation but it has to b as to be exercised in accord with the guidelin uideline engrafted in such power viz; ( r viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) t to se r (ii) to prevent abuse of the process o ocess of any Court. In what cases power to q any C er to quash the criminal proceeding o eding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercise ercised where the offender and victi victim have settled their dispute would depe d depend on the facts and circumstance stances of each case and no category can of ea y can be prescribed. However, befo , before exercise of such power, the High Co igh Court must have due regard to th d to the nature and gravity of the crime. H ime. Heinous and serious offences o nces of mental depravity or offences like mu ike murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot b nnot be fittingly quashed even though the v fittin the victim or victim’s family and th and the offender have settled the dispute. S pute. Such offences are not private ivate in nature and have a serious impa impact on society. Similarly, an ly, any compromise between the victim a ctim and offender in relation to th to the offences under special statutes like s like Prevention of Corruption Act o Act or the offences committed by public the o ublic servants while working in th in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for a for any basis for quashing crimin criminal proceedings involving such offence nces. But the criminal cases havin having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatin minatingly civil flavour stand on on a different footing for the purposes differ rposes of quashing, particularly th rly the offences arising from commercia mercial, financial, mercantile, civ , civil, partnership or such like transaction actions or the offences arising out o out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. o etc. or the family disputes where th here the wrong is basically private or person personal in nature and the parties hav ies have resolved their entire dispute. In this n this category of cases, the High Cou h Court may quash criminal proceedings ings if in its view, because of th of the compromise between the offender a nder and the victim, the possibility o bility of conviction is remote and bleak and k and continuation of the criminal cas nal case would put the accused to great oppr t oppression and prejudice and extre extreme injustice would be caused to him b him by not quashing the criminal cas nal case despite full and complete settlement victim. ement and compromise with the victim In other words, the High Court mu In ot urt must consider whether it would b ould be unfair or contrary to the interest terest of justice to continue with th ith the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19371- -2026 (O&M) -5- criminal proceeding or continuation ation of the criminal proceeding wou g would tantamount to abuse of process cess of law despite settlement an ent and compromise between the victim and im and the wrongdoer and whether ether to secure the ends of justice, it is appro appropriate that criminal case is put is put to an end and if the answer to the above an en above question(s) is in the affirmativ rmative, the High Court shall be well with the H ll within its jurisdiction to quash th ash the criminal proceeding.”

12. Applying the law settled by Hon'b Appl Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora o thora of judgments and th and this High Court it is apparent th rent that when the parties have entere entered into a compromis promise, in the nature of cases as pr as prescribed then continuation of th n of the proceedings woul s would be merely an abuse of process rocess of the Court and by allowing an ing and accepting the pra e prayer of the petitioners by quashin uashing the FIR would be securing th ring the ends of justice, w stice, which is primarily the object o bject of the legislature enacting und g under Cr.P.C. Section 482 Cr.P.C

13. In the facts and circumstances, this In th s, this Court finds that the case in han in hand squarely falls wit lls within the ambit and parameters s eters settled by judicial precedents an ents and hence, FIR No.21 No.219, dated 10.07.2023 registered tered under Sections 353, 186, 427 an 427 and 506 IPC (Corresp orresponding Sections 132, 221, 324( 1, 324(4), 351 of BNS) at Police Statio Station City Tarn Taran, Taran, District Tarn Taran and all the all the subsequent proceedings arisin arising therefrom, are he are hereby quashed qua the petition etitioners, on the basis of compromis promise Annexure P-2.

14. Needless to say that the parties shal Need es shall remain bound by the terms an rms and conditions of the of the compromise and their statem statements recorded before the Cou e Court below. Petition sta tion stands allowed. May 07, 2026 tripti WAJ) (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether Whether peaking ether speaking/non-speaking : Speakin Yes/No : Yes/N ether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.12 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document