Punjab Jab And Haryana High Court · 2025

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT AMIT KUMAR Mr. B.R. Rana-I, Advocate Present: Mr. for the petitioners. for t Mr. Yuvraj Singh Tiwana, AAG, Pu Mr. G, Punjab. Mr. Mr. Akash Rana, Advocate for Mr. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** *** (cid:1) NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been fil The een filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of B 8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh FIR a Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.63 dated 23.0

23.03.2021 registered under Sectio 506, Sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 506, 120-B IPC at Po Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana dhiana (Annexure P-1), charge-sheet order dated 20.0 d 20.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) and all nd all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom refrom on the basis of compromise dat ) dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) executed between etween 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 2025.04.04 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.550 55003 of 2024 -2-

4. In compliance thereof, report dat In c rt dated 23.01.2025 from learned Judicial Magistr agistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana has be has been received through learned District and Sess d Sessions Judge, Ludhiana with state hich, h statements of the parties, in which, it has been menti mentioned that the compromise is ge e is genuine and there was no undue influence or coer r coercion from any side.

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 2025.04.04 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

57. The position that emerges from “57. summarised thus: the power of th criminal proceeding or FIR or inherent jurisdiction is distinct and to a criminal court for compoundi to a 320 320 of the Code. Inherent power 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, fittingly quashed even though the vi fittin 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 he facts and circumstances of each h 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.550 55003 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 c. or the family disputes where the e 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 Cou Court may quash criminal proceed 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 h Court must consider whether it r 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 basi t basis, the present petition under Se der Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashin uashing the present FIR. The compro ompromise has been arrived at with the intervention ntion of the respectables and family amily members and the parties have decided to keep h keep harmony between them and to liv ence, d to live peacefully in future. Hence, it would be in the e in the interest of justice that parties a e the arties are allowed to compromise the matter. Moreove eover, learned counsel for the partie w of parties are ad idem that, in view of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.04 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.550 55003 of 2024 -4- the settlement of ent of disputes between the parties, th es to ties, the present petition deserves to be accepted in th d in this context.

9. In view of above, the instant petiti In v ntly, t petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned FI FIR No.63 dated 23.03.2021 reg A, 1 registered under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 354-C, 50 C, 506, 120-B IPC at Police Station - Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana, charge- sheet order dated r dated 20.09.2021 and all other cons onsequential proceedings arising therefrom are her are hereby quashed, on the basis of co s s of compromise, qua the petitioners only. April 03, 2025 Pankaj* (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.04.04 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh