Punjab Jab And Haryana High Court · 2025

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT AMIT KUMAR Mr. MPS Chahal, Advocate and Present: Mr. te for Mr. Anurag Saharan, Advocate for Mr. Mr. Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate for the petitioners. for t Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3. for r *** *** (cid:1) NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed b The filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya ratiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 0003 a, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0003 dated 11.01.2024

1.2024 registered under Sections 406, 406, 420, 498-A and 120-B IPC at Police Station tion P.S. N.R.I., District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proce t proceedings arising therefrom on th on the basis of compromise dated

22.07.2024 (Ann (Annexure P-2) executed between the een the parties.

2. 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.

3. During the course of preliminary Duri 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. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.497 49791 of 2024 -2-

4. In compliance thereof, report dat In c rt dated 25.11.2024 from learned Judicial Magistra agistrate 1st Class, Patiala has been re f the een received, with statements of the parties, in which which, it has been mentioned that th that the compromise is genuine and there was no und no undue influence or coercion from d on from any side. Short reply filed on behalf of the Stat cord. he State of Punjab is taken on record.

5. 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 e Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and nd another, 2013(4) RCR (Cr (Criminal) 102 observed compounding of ing of offence can be allowed ev ed even after conviction, during 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.

6. An identical question came to be An 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:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh “57. 57. The position that emerges from summarised thus: the power of th criminal proceeding or FIR or inherent jurisdiction is distinct and to a criminal court for compoundi to a 320 of the Code. Inherent power 320 statutory limitation but it has to be guideline engrafted in such power justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the cases power to quash the crimina F.I.R. may be exercised where the o F.I.R their dispute would depend on the fa case and no category can be prescri of such power, the High Court must of su and gravity of the crime. Heinous a depravity or offences like murder, fittin fittingly quashed even though the vi offender have settled the dispute. Su from the above discussion can be a of the High Court in quashing a or complaint in exercise of its and different from the power given unding the offences under Section wer is of wide plenitude with no to be exercised in accord with the wer viz; (i) to secure the ends of f the process of any Court. In what inal proceeding or complaint or he offender and victim have settled h he facts and circumstances of each escribed. However, before exercise must have due regard to the nature ous and serious offences of mental der, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be e victim or victim's family and the e. Such offences are not private in CRM-M No.497 49791 of 2024 -3- pact on society. Similarly, any nature and have serious impact m and offender in relation to the compromise between the victim an Act like Prevention of Corruption Act offences under special statutes like or quashing criminal proceedings or t or the offences for any basis for q the criminal cases having involving such offences. But inatingly civil flavour stand on overwhelmingly and pre-dominati ses of quashing, particularly the different footing for the purposes rcial, financial, mercantile, civil, vil, offences arising from commercial t of tions or the offences arising out of partnership or such like transaction e c. or the family disputes where the matrimony relating to dowry etc. or ersonnel in nature and the parties wrong is basically private or perso te. In this category of cases, High have resolved their entire dispute. I ceedings if in its view, because of Court may quash criminal proceed Cou fender and victim, the possibility of the compromise between the offende and continuation of criminal case conviction is remote and bleak and ression and prejudice and extreme would put accused to great oppress him by not quashing the criminal injustice would be caused to him ettlement and compromise with the case despite full and complete settle r it h Court must consider whether it victim. In other words, the High C the interest of justice to continue would be unfair or contrary to the or continuation of the criminal with the criminal proceeding or to abuse of process of law despite proceeding would tantamount to ab tween the victim and wrongdoer settlement and compromise betwee s of justice, it is appropriate that and whether to secure the ends of d and if the answer to the above criminal case is put to an end an e High Court shall be well within question(s) is in affirmative, the Hi inal proceeding.” its jurisdiction to quash the criminal its ju

7. The same view has been reiterated The 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.

8. Having regard to the contentions of Hav ons of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that t that both the parties to the litigation gation have entered into compromise and on that basis t basis, the present petition under Se der Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for qu for quashing the present FIR. The co ed at he compromise has been arrived at with the interven tervention of the respectables and fa and family members and the parties have decided to ed to keep harmony between them an ture. em and to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would would be in the interest of justice d to justice that parties are allowed to compromise the se the matter. Moreover, learned coun counsel for the parties are ad idem PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.497 49791 of 2024 -4- that, in view of ew of the settlement of disputes bet es between the parties, the present petition deserves serves to be accepted in this context.

9. In view of above, the instant petiti In v ntly, t petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FI FIR No.0003 dated 11.01.2024 406, registered under Sections 406, 420, 498-A and A and 120-B IPC at Police Station tation P.S. N.R.I., District Patiala (Annexure P-1) 1) and all other consequential proc oceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, shed, on the basis of compromise, qua se, qua the petitioners only. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE January 22, 202 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.01.23 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh