Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harsewak Singh @ Buta Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 May, 2025
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057040
CRM-M-65201-2024 1
311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-65201-2024
Date of Decision: 01.05.2025
Harsewak Singh @ Buta Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Dishant Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Jashanpreet, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.130
dated 26.06.2024 under Sections 452, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC registered at
Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1) and all the
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated
16.12.2024 (Annexure P-2).
2. FIR in question was got registered by complainant-respondent
No.2 and the investigation commenced thereon. However, with the
intervention of respectables, finally the parties arrived at settlement and they
resolved their inter se dispute, which is apparent from Compromise, annexed
as Annexure P-2. On the basis of the compromise, the petitioners are invoking
the inherent power of this Court by praying that continuation of these
proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 13:17:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057040
CRM-M-65201-2024 2
and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom may be quashed in the interest of justice.
3. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 directed the parties to
appear before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate for recording their statements, as
contended before the Court, and the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate was also
directed to send its report.
4. In pursuance to the same, learned SDJM, Budhlada has sent the
report dated 17.03.2025 to this Court. With the report learned SDJM, Budhlada
has also annexed the original statement of respondent No.2-complainant
namely, Jarnail Singh; statements of petitioner No.1-Harsewak Singh @ Buta;
petitioner No.2-Lovepreet Kaur @ Mandeep Kaur; petitioner No.3-Gurmail
Singh; petitioner No.4-Gurvinder Singh; recorded on 05.02.2025 and statement
of HC, Jaskaran Singh recorded on 13.02.2025. On the basis of the statements,
learned SDJM, Budhladha has concluded in the report that the compromise
effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any coercion, undue
influence, fraud or misrepresentation. It has been further mentioned therein
that as per the statement of IO, none of the accused was declared proclaimed
offender in the present case and no other criminal case is pending against
accused persons except petitioner Nos.1 and 4 as they are involved in FIR
No.204 dated 15.10.2024 under Sections 115(2)/117(2)/118(2)/118(1)/3(5) of
BNS, PS City Budhlada, District Mansa.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record
and the report sent by the learned SDJM, Budhlada.
6. A bare perusal of statutory provision of the 528 of BNSS would
show that the High Court may make such orders, as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 359 BNSS is equally
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 13:17:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057040
CRM-M-65201-2024 3
relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of
the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
7. Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and
the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the
continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a number of cases including Narinder Singh and others
Versus State of Punjab and another, 2014 (6) SCC 466; B.S.Joshi and
others vs State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 675
followed by this Court in Full Bench case of Kulwinder Singh and others Vs.
State of Punjab and another, 2007(3) RCR 1052 have dealt with the
proposition involved in the present case and settled the law.
8. Thereafter, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303 further dealt with
the issue and the earlier law settled by the Supreme Court for quashing of the
FIR in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Para 61 of
the judgment reads as under:-
“61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing
a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given
to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section
320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of
justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In
what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint
or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 13:17:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057040CRM-M-65201-2024 4
the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences
of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused
to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair
or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to
quash the criminal proceeding.”
9. Applying the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in plethora of
judgments and this High Court, it is apparent that when the parties have
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 13:17:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:057040
CRM-M-65201-2024 5
entered into a compromise, then continuation of the proceedings would be
merely an abuse of process of the Court and by allowing and accepting the
prayer of the petitioners by quashing the FIR would be securing the ends of
justice, which is primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section
528 of BNSS.
10. As a result, this Court finds that the case in hand squarely falls
within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents and hence,
FIR No.130 dated 26.06.2024 under Sections 452, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC
registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa (Annexure P-1),
along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby
quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise. Needless to say that
the parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise
and their statements recorded before the Court below.
11. Petition stands allowed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
01.05.2025 JUDGE
Parveen kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable :Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-05-2025 13:17:39 :::
[ad_1]
Source link