Jagdish Suman & others v. State of Punjab & another
Case Details
CRM-M-36927-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 278 CRM-M-36927-2025 (O&M) Date of decision:21.08.2025 Jagdish Ram @ Jagdish Suman & others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:
Legal Reasoning
this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052. It is equally settled position of law that the power of High Court in quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation. Such power can certainly be exercised in cases where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The High Court is required to consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate to put an end to the criminal case and if the answer to such question is in affirmative, then the High Court is well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. Reference in this context can be made to Hon’ble Apex Court judgments cited as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466. Reference can also be made to another judgment rendered in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 Crl. L.R. (SC) 1527, wherein, it was observed that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 528 of the BNSS, are exercisable in post- Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36927-2025 -4- conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice before an Appellate Court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. It was also observed that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers was not to incentivize any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 9. Reliance can also be placed upon Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 102, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that even after the conviction, if the parties have settled the dispute amicably and have decided to live in peace and harmony, this Court, in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, can compound the offence. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court was set aside and it was directed that the appeal, pending before the lower appellate Court, would be rendered infructuous. Reference can also be made to the judgment rendered in K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi Rep. By P.O.P. Kaliappan, 2010 (1) RCR Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36927-2025 -5- (Criminal) 184, whereby, on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and the accused was acquitted of the charge, framed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 10. In view of the proposition of law as settled in the aforementioned cases, this Court finds that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse process of the Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case which squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and that allowing and accepting the prayer of the petitioners by quashing the complaint in question as well as the aforesaid judgment of conviction and quantum of sentence as imposed upon the petitioners would be securing the ends of justice, which is primarily the object of legislature enacted under Section 528 of the BNSS. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint bearing No. 18 dated 11.08.2011, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506, 295, 295-A, 296, 120-B IPC along with all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) and order on quantum of sentence, passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, whereby the petitioners had been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise entered into between them. If Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36927-2025 -6- any appeal is pending before the lower appellate Court, the same shall be disposed of accordingly. Bail/surety bonds of the petitioners be also discharged. Fine, if any paid, be returned to the petitioners. 12. Needless to say that the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and statements as recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate. 21.08.2025 anju (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Arguments
Mr. Bhanu Partap, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Kamil Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... SUBHAS MEHLA, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. 18 dated 11.08.2011, registered under Sections 323, 325, 506, 295, 295-A, 296, 120-B IPC along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the judgment dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, whereby the petitioners have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36927-2025 -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the parties by making amicable settlement have resolved their inter se dispute and therefore, the FIR in question as well as the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2022, passed by the trial Court, along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom may be quashed. 4. This Court vide order dated 17.07.2025 had given directions to the parties to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements qua genuineness/correctness of the compromise and that the compromise was not the result of any fraud or misappropriation. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar has sent a report dated 08.08.2025 to this Court along with the statements of respondent No.2/complainant as well as of the petitioners, recorded on 28.07.2025. The statement of the Investigating Officer ASI Mohinder Pal, recorded on 05.08.2025, is also attached with the report. 6. On the basis of these statements, it is submitted by learned Magistrate that the compromise effected between the parties is genuine, out of free will and without any pressure or coercion. It is also mentioned in the report that apart from the petitioners, there is no other accused in the complaint and that no accused has been declared proclaimed persons in this case. 7. Heard. Anju Goel 2025.08.26 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36927-2025 -3- 8. It is well settled that the High Court has power to allow compounding of a non-compoundable offence and quash the prosecution under Section 528 of the BNSS, where it feels that the same is required to prevent the abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Full Bench judgment of