Allowed¶66

Gurgurdeep Singh Alias Gopi & Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2025CRM-M/15959/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise; Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction of High Court; FIR No.150 dated 13.11.2023 under Sections 452/323/325/201 read with Section 34 IPC, P.S. Kotbhai, Sri Muktsar Sahib; verification report of JMFC Gidderbaha dated 05.05.2025; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied upon; offence entirely personal in nature; ends of justice; peace and harmony; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CRM-M petition allowed; pending applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023 registered at Police Station Kotbhai and all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom, qua the petitioners; pending application(s), if any, disposed off. ¶66

Gurgurdeep Singh Alias Gopi & Others Vs State of Punjab and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023 registered at Police Station Kotbhai and all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom, qua the petitioners; pending application(s), if any, disposed off.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023 under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotbhai, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed on the basis of the compromise dated 05.03.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Following the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility; quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise, would bring peace and harmony and secure the ends of justice.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

On the strength of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha's report dated 05.05.2025 and the absence of objection by either side before this Court, the matter stands compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence.

¶55

Key takeaways

The present petition is allowed; FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023 along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-15959-2025 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided 21.05.2025 (Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.). Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 sought quashing of FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023, under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, on the basis of a compromise dated 05.03.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2 (injured de facto complainant Mandeep Singh). Pursuant to notice of motion issued on 01.04.2025, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha (report dated 05.05.2025) recorded that the parties' statements were bona fide and free of pressure or coercion, the compromise was voluntary, genuine, bonafide and true, all accused, complainant and injured were parties to it, none involved was a proclaimed offender and the petitioners were not previous convicts. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held the offence to be entirely personal in nature, not affecting public peace or tranquility, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners; pending applications stood disposed of.

¶1

¶2

131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-15959-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.05.2025

¶4

Gurgurdeep Singh and others ... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶11

Mr. Munish Kamboj, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶14

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘the BNSS’) praying for quashing of FIR No.0150 dated 13.11.2023 (P-1), under Sections 452, 323, 325 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 05.03.2025 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶15

Allegations are that petitioners in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries on the person of de facto complainant/respondent No.2-Mandeep Singh with their respective weapons.

¶16

Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the

¶17

Rajeev Purohit2025.05.21 18:28 3. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

¶19

parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶21

Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police officer present, is not averse in case the above FIR along with consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-

¶23

book.

¶24

While issuing notice of motion on 01.04.2025, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶25

“Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2 .

¶26

(2) Notice of motion.

¶27

(3) Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶28

(4) Mr. Munish Kamboj, Advocate, has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. He acknowledged the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶29

(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day.

¶30

(6) Petitioners shall file their respective affidavits that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against them and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶31

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 30.04.2025, for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶32

(8) Learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court shall record the statement(s) of all accused, complainant/injured and victim, if any, and submit a report to this Court before the

¶33

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

¶35

next date of hearing containing the following information:-

¶36

(i). Whether the statements of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner?

¶37

(ii). Whether the compromise effected between the parties is genuine and valid?

¶38

(iii). Whether all the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise and if not, the details/particulars of such person(s)?

¶39

(iv). Whether any other case is pending against either of the parties or not, if yes, the details thereof?

¶40

(v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender?

¶41

(vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not?

¶42

(9) List before this Court on 21.05.2025 for further consideration.

¶43

(10) Meanwhile, learned State Counsel shall also get the instructions in the matter as to whether the State has any objection?

¶44

(11) Copy of this order be sent to learned Judicial Officer concerned forthwith for information and strict compliance.

¶45

(12) Be shown in the urgent list.”

¶46

In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 05.05.2025 has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:-

¶47

“(i) The statements of parties are bonafide and not result of any pressure or coercion in any manner. (ii) The compromise effected between the parties is voluntary, genuine, bonafide and true.

¶48

(iii) All the accused, complainant and injured are parties to the compromise.

¶49

(iv) As per statement of IO, there is no other criminal case pending against any of accused except accused Anoop Singh and a case FIR no.69 dated 12.04.2005 under Section 379, 447, 34, 120B IPC Police station Kotbhai has been registered against him and in this case accused has been acquitted vide judgment dated 13.03.2012 and another case FIR no. 47 dated

¶50

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

¶52

05.04.2021 under Section 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and offence under Section 326 IPC added later on, Police Station Kotbhai also registered against accused Anoop Singh in which accused has been declared innocent. It is pertinent to mention here that a DDR no.30 dated 13.11.2023 under Section 323, 34 IPC related to present case FIR no. No.150 dated 13.11.2023 under Sections 452/323/34 IPC later added offence Under Section 325/201 of IPC Police Station Kotbhai registered against complainant Mandeep Singh.

¶53

(v) As per statement of I0, none of the persons involved in this case/dispute are declared proclaimed offenders nor any such proceedings are pending against any of the persons involved in this case/dispute.

¶54

(vi) The petitioners are not previous convicts. Moreover, accused Anoop Singh stands acquitted in case FIR no.69 dated 12.04.2005 under Section 379, 447, 34, 120B IPC Police station Kotbhai vide judgment dated 13.03.2012 and in another FIR no. 47 dated 05.04.2021 under Section 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and offence under Section 326 IPC added later on, Police Station Kotbhai accused Anoop Singh declared innocent . ”

¶55

A perusal of the aforesaid extract clearly reveals that matter has been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence. Even before this Court also, there is no objection by either side against each other.

¶56

9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,

¶57

(2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-

¶58

“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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and

¶59

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

¶61

circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly 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 the 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 the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High

¶62

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

¶64

Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”

¶65

In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that the offence is entirely personal in nature and does not affect public peace or tranquility. Thus, quashing of the FIR in question along with consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice.

¶66

Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.

¶67

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶68

21.05.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE

¶69

*Whether speaking/ reasoned*	: *Yes*	/ No
*Whether reportable*	: *Yes*	/ No

¶70

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.21 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurgurdeep Singh Alias Gopi & Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurgurdeep Singh Alias Gopi & Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranvir Singh Alias Bunty and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Buran Alias Burhan Vs State of Haryana

Suman Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Surender Singh Alias Vikki Rana Vs State of Haryana

MD Afzal Hussain Vs State of Punjab

Amit Alias Mitta Vs State of Haryana