Allowed¶70

Surjit Singh Alias Surjeet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2025CRM-M/19956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS; offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148 IPC; FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2023, PS Pasyana, District Patiala; compromise dated 21.03.2025 verified by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied on; offence personal in nature; ends of justice; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.; CRM-M-19956-2025 (O&M); decided 28.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2023 registered at Police Station Pasyana, District Patiala, along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶70

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2023 (P-1) under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 and 148 IPC, registered at Police Station Pasyana, District Patiala, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, deserves to be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 21.03.2025 (P-2) entered into between the petitioners and respondent No.2.

¶25

Court's answer

On the basis of the Judicial Magistrate's report and the material on record, the matter stands compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence, and neither side objects to the other.

¶59

Ratio / Principle

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.

¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2023, under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 and 148 IPC, registered at Police Station Pasyana, District Patiala, on the basis of compromise dated 21.03.2025 between the petitioners and respondent No.2. On notice, the parties were directed to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate, whose report dated 05.05.2025 recorded that the compromise was bona fide, genuine and free from pressure or coercion; that all accused, complainant and injured were parties to it; that no other criminal case was pending; that none was previously convicted; and that none was a proclaimed offender. 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, such that quashing would secure the ends of justice. Petition allowed; FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners. Interlocutory application CRM-21651-2025 for placing affidavits (Annexures P-6 to P-9) on record was allowed.

¶1

¶2

139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-19956-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2025

¶4

Surjit Singh @ Surjeet Singh and others

¶5

... Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶10

Present: Mr. Ramneek Singh Baweja, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Manjot Kaur, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶15

CRM-21651-2025

¶16

Application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for placing on record affidavits of petitioners (Annexures P-6 to P-9).

¶17

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Annexures (P-6 to P-9) are taken on record.

¶18

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶19

Main Case

¶20

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS praying for quashing of FIR No.121 dated 15.07.2023 (P-1), under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at

¶21

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

Police Station Pasyana, District Patiala along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 21.03.2025 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2.

¶24

Allegations are that petitioners wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant-Gursewak Singh, inflicted injuries to him with their respective weapons and also criminally intimidated.

¶25

Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent No.2; hence FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶29

While issuing notice of motion on 21.04.2025, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶30

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

¶31

(2) Notice of motion.

¶32

(3) Mr. T.P.S.Walia, learned AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.

¶33

(4) Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. He acknowledges the factum of compromise (P-2) arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 2.

¶34

(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied

¶35

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

¶37

to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day.

¶38

(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.

¶39

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 05.05.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶40

(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 next date of hearing containing the following information:-

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(v). Whether any of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender? (vi). Whether any of the petitioner(s) is/are previous convict or not?

¶46

(9) List before this Court on 28.05.2025 for further consideration.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Be shown in the Urgent list.”

¶50

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, Patiala. For reference, the operative part of

¶51

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 report reads as under:I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

¶53

“1. Further, from the statements of the parties, it is ascertained that the statement of the parties are bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc in any manner, and the compromise between the parties is genuine and authentic.

¶54

2. All the accused, complainant and injured are party to the compromise.

¶55

3. There is no other accused nor any complainant/ affected/aggrieved party, aart from the parties arrayed in this petition.

¶56

4. None of the parties are involved in any other criminal case.

¶57

5. None of the parties has been previously convicted.

¶58

6. None of the parties has been declared as proclaimed offender . ”

¶59

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.

¶60

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held as under:-

¶61

“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 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

¶62

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

In view of above discussion, this Court is fully convinced that

¶66

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

¶67

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

¶69

proceedings, on the basis of compromise would bring peace and harmony to secure the ends of justice.

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

28.05.2025 Rajeev (rvs)	(MA	HABIR SING JUDG	H SINDHU) E
	*Whether speaking/ reasoned*	: *Yes*	/ No
	*Whether reportable*	: *Yes*	/ No

¶73

Rajeev Purohit 2025.05.29 19:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Surjit Singh Alias Surjeet Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh Alias Surjeet Singh 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

Samandeep Singh Alias Mani Vs State of Punjab

Rashid Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Navdeep Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Navjeet Singh Alias Navdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sartaj Singh Alias Sewa and Another Vs State of Punjab

Samedeen Alias Dr Sameer Vs State of Haryana