Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darmesh Kumar Aggarwal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 7 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -1-
251/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 07.03.2025
DARMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS.
.....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. H.S. Oberoi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 199 dated 21.12.2021 under
Sections 307, 379-B, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act at
Police Station Kathu Nangal District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of Compromise
dated 01.03.2023 (signed on 02.03.2023) (Annexure P-2) arrived between
the petitioners and Respondent No.2.
During the pendency of the dispute, the parties have
compromised the matter and filed the present petition for quashing of FIR.
Vide order dated 04.08.2023, parties were directed to appear
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -2-
before the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court and report with regard to the
genuineness of the compromise was called for.
The report dated 25.07.2024 has been received from Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar, stating that the parties have entered into a
compromise, which is genuine, voluntary and without any coercion or undue
influence.
Though the parties have entered into a compromise, the moot
question for examination by this Court is still to consider as to whether the
instant FIR be quashed, which involves the offence under Section 307 IPC
as well since it is non-compoundable as per Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of
Madhya Pradesh versus Laxmi Narayan and others‘, 2019 (5) SCC 688,
considering such eventualities after examining catena of decisions on the
issue and summarizing the propositions as under:-
“(1) Section 482 CrPC, 1973 preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises
and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
section 320 CrPC, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -3-
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a
wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of
the process of any court.
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulate.
(6) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of the victim
have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly
speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in
such ca es is founded on the overriding element of public
interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -4-
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between
the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote
and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
Thereafter, it was observed and held as under:-
“i) that the power conferred under section 482 of the
Code to quash he criminal proceedings for the non-
compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code
can be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those
arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the
parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society.
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -5-
iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the
victim and the offender;
iv) offences under section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc.
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual alone, and
therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under
section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a
serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute
amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not
rest its decision merely because there is a mention of
section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under
this provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to
framing the charge under section 307 IPC. For this
purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the
nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons
used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court
would be permissible only after the evidence is collected
after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is
framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not
permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6
and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of
Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -6-
to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;
v) while exercising the power under section 482 of the
Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of
non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature
and do not have a serious impart on society, on the
ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the
victim and the offender, the High Court is required to
consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of
the accused, namely, whether the accused was
absconding and why he was absconding, how he had
managed with the complainant to enter into a
compromise etc.”
Keeping in view the principles laid down in State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra); the contents of paper book; the report received that the
parties have entered into a compromise and the fact that the injury attributed
to petitioner No.1-Darmesh Aggarwal, who had fired six shots aiming the
complainant, out of which, one rubbed his right arm which led to whole in
his jacket and one got hit at his activa added with the fact that the trial is in
the midway, there is probability that the accused are likely to be acquitted
and the whole trial proceedings, if allowed to continue will be a futile
exercise, as has been held by this Court in Kulwinder Singh and others
versus State of Punjab, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 1052, the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an
abuse of process of Court. Though, the powers vested therein are unfettered
but shall be exercised sparingly with utmost care and caution since the Court
is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control
social order.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032817
CRM-M-38093-2023 (O&M) -7-
Applying the aforesaid formula to the present case would
definitely lead to an ever lasting peace and harmony not only among the two
parties but in the locality as a whole and therefore, in view of the amicable
resolution of the issues amongst the parties, no useful purpose would be
served by continuation of the proceedings.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on scientific
and mechanical examination of the material, this Court has convincingly
reached to the conclusion that FIR No. 199 dated 21.12.2021 under Sections
307, 379-B, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act at Police Station
Kathu Nangal District Amritsar Rural (Annexure P-1) and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby ordered to be quashed qua the
petitioners, on the basis of Compromise dated 01.03.2023 (signed on
02.03.2023) (Annexure P-2).
The present petition is hereby allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
07.03.2025 JUDGE
Meenu/Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 11-03-2025 01:24:16 :::