Tamana Sharma and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties.

¶17

DETAILS OF CRIMINAL CASE:-

¶18

FIR No.	Date	Section(s)	Police Station	District
114	13.08.2017	419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC	Fatehgarh Sahib	Fatehgarh Sahib

¶19

Since there were total 05 accused and in the present compromise quashing petition, 04 of the accused have filed the petition.

¶20

On 07.04.2025, following order was passed:-

¶21

“1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the below detailed First Information Report (FIR), and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), effected between the parties.

¶22

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶23

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶24

- 2 -

¶25

DETAIL OF CRIMINAL CASE:

¶26

*FIR No.*	*Date*	*Section(s)*	*Police* *Station*	*District*
*114*	*13.08.2017*	*419,* *420,* *467, 468, 471* *and 120-B* *IPC*	*Fatehgarh* *Sahib*	*Fatehgarh* *Sahib*

¶27

Further, details of petitioner(s)/accused and complainant/victim(s), as per memorandum of parties of present petition, is as under:-

¶28

*Sr.*	*Name(s)*	*Status in present*	*petition viz.*
*No.*		*Petitioner/accused* *Complainant/victim* *No.*	OR *– respondent*
1	*Tamana Sharma, Rishi Kant Sharma,* _Harinder Saini and Sukhvir Singh _	*Petitioner Nos.1 to 4*
2	*Amit Nanda and Seema Rani*	*Respondent Nos.2 &*	3

¶29

2. Counsel submits that in fact there are total 05 accused and the present petition has been filed by 04 of them. One of the accused namely Vikas Sharma, is not in contact and has been declared proclaimed offender/person but both the private respondents have agreed to resolve the dispute, comprehensively qua all the accused including Vikas Sharma, who is not even petitioner before this Court. The required statement to that effect would be got recorded before the Court of learned Magistrate, if so directed. Counsel submits that all the parties to the dispute, already arrayed as parties in the present petition, have amicably resolved their dispute through compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2). Therefore, if proceedings arising from the aforementioned FIR, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, all the parties and their family members will be able to live their lives peacefully.

¶30

3. Notice of motion.

¶31

4. On asking of the Court, learned State counsel, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. and has filed his Power of Attorney in Court, which is taken on record.

¶32

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3, admits execution of the compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶33

6. The affected parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, on 30.04.2025 or on any other date convenient to the

¶34

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶35

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶36

- 3 -

¶37

Court, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Thereupon, the concerned Court shall submit a detailed report, containing the information on the following points, along with copies of the statements to this Court, on or before the adjourned date:-

¶38

Sr. Information required No.

¶39

I. Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR

¶40

II. Number of complainant/victim(s)

¶41

III. Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same

¶42

IV. In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereof; OR

¶43

His/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person

¶44

V. Whether any accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication

¶45

VI. Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence

¶46

VII. Any other aspect relevant to the present case.

¶47

7. To come up on 26.05.2025, awaiting report.

¶48

8. Reply by the respondent-State, if any, be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

¶49

Again on 26.05.2025, following order was passed:-

¶50

“Short reply by way of affidavit of Sukhnaaz Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib on behalf of respondent No.1-State has been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record.

¶51

Let the statements of both the private respondents be recorded again clarifying there is no objection qua quashing of the FIR because of the said compromise on behalf of all these 5 accused, also be clarified if there is no objection of using of the statement now given by the complainant and victim for quashing of the proceedings, if any such petition is filed by the accused in future, who is not today party

¶52

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶53

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶54

- 4 -

¶55

to the instant petition.

¶56

The respondents are directed to re-appear before the learned Trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate on or before 13.06.2025 on or on any other date convenient to the Court, for getting their respective statements recorded with regard to the compromise. Adjourned to 14.07.2025.”

¶57

Report dated 11.06.2025 has been received and in compliance to the directions dated 26.05.2025, respondents No.2 and 3 have deposed their no objection, even if the proceedings are quashed qua the 5^th accused i.e. Vikas Sharma, who is not party to the instant quashing petition.

¶58

Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the parties appeared before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, and as per report dated 11.06.2025, submitted to this Court, both the parties have got recorded their respective statements in Court. From the report received from the learned Court below, the following is discernible:-

¶59

Sr. No.	De	scription
1.	Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR	Five
2.	Number of complainant/victim(s)	Two
3.	Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same	Yes (respondents No.2 and 3 have deposed their no objection, even if the proceedings are quashed qua the 5^thaccused i.e. Vikas Sharma, who is not party to the instantquashing petition)
4.	In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereof; OR	Yes (accused namely Vikas Sharma, since proclaimed person, is not party to the present quashing petition)
	His/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of suchperson
5.	Whether any accused has	Yes, accused Vikas Sharma has been declared asproclaimed offender on

¶60

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶61

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶62

- 5 -

¶63

	been declared as a proclaimed offender/person or any such proceedings against him/her have been initiated or pending adjudication	27.09.2023.
6.	Report of the Court whether compromise is genuine, voluntary, and without any coercion or undue influence	Yes
7.	Any other aspect relevant to thepresent case.	No

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that in view of the report received from the learned Court Below, it is evident that the matter has been resolved and private parties have effected a compromise, and there remains no dispute amongst them requiring any adjudication. Further submits that in view of the compromise so effected between the private parties, pendency of the FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom would be sheer abuse of the process of law, and the same may be quashed.

¶65

Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for private respondent(s), after going through the statements and the report received from learned Court below, very fairly admit that the private parties have resolved their dispute and effected a compromise and that they have no objection if the FIR (supra) and all the consequential proceedings are quashed on the basis of the compromise.

¶66

Through catena of judgments, Hon’ble the Apex Court and High Courts (including Punjab and Haryana High Court), have culled out various principles of law concerning quashing of proceedings emanating after lodging of FIR, and some of them are as under:-

¶67

Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to enhance social amity, and to reduce friction.

¶68

Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases.

¶69

There can never be any hard and fast category which can be prescribed to enable

¶70

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶71

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶72

- 6 -

¶73

the Court to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS "to prevent abuse of the process of any Court" or "to secure the ends of justice”.

¶74

No embargo, be in the shape of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶75

The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour.

¶76

High Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in noncompoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 Cr.P.C./Section 359 BNSS, in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice.

¶77

Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised Ex-Debitia Justitia to prevent an abuse of process of Court.

¶78

Such power has no limits. However, the High Court will exercise it sparingly and with utmost care and caution.

¶79

The exercise of power has to be with circumspection and restraint.

¶80

The Court is a vital and an extra-ordinary effective instrument to maintain and control social order.

¶81

The Courts play role of paramount importance in achieving peace, harmony and ever-lasting congeniality in society.

¶82

Resolution of a dispute by way of a compromise between two warring groups, therefore, should attract the immediate and prompt attention of a Court which should endeavour to give full effect to the same unless such compromise is abhorrent to lawful composition of the society or would promote savagery.

¶83

Matters which can be categorized as personal in nature or where nature of injuries do not exhibit mental depravity or involves commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of FIR would override the public interest, the Court can quash the FIR in view of the settlement arrived at amongst the parties.

¶84

In this regard, judgments cited are:

¶85

1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 (SC);

¶86

2. Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 (SC);

¶87

3. Ramgopal and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 (SC); and

¶88

4. Kulwinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 [P&H FB]

¶89

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, this Court finds that there appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that pendency of the present criminal litigation would be abuse of process of law since the chances of

¶90

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶91

CRM-M-17818-2025

¶92

- 7 -

¶93

conviction of the petitioners are bleak in view of the compromise, so effected between the private parties.

¶94

The report alongwith statements of the affected parties received from learned Court below would reveal that the complainant/victim person(s) have genuinely effected a compromise with the petitioners and they have no objection, if the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings are quashed.

¶95

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the report received by this Court and also, taking into consideration the aforementioned settled principles of law, this petition is accepted and FIR (as detailed in para No. 1 above) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners, in view of compromise dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-2).

¶96

Petition stands disposed of.

¶97

(SANJAY VASHISTH) 14.07.2025 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶98

AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.16 13:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Tamana Sharma and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamana Sharma and 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

Jaswinder Singh Alias Bhagat and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mamta Devi Vs Vinod Kumar

Vijay Singh Alias Vija Vs State of Punjab

Man Singh and Anr. Vs Mewa Rani

Makhan Singh and Others Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Others

Gurpreet Singh Alias Gori Vs State of Punjab