Uttam Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.234 dated 21.07.2023 under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been effected between the parties.

¶18

On 24.04.2025, the following order was passed:

¶19

“Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶20

(2) Notice of motion.

¶21

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

¶22

(4) Mr. Vishwajeet Mehla, Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3. 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 Nos. 2 & 3.

¶23

(5) Requisite number of copies of the petition be supplied to learned Counsel for the respondents during the course of day. (6) Petitioners shall file their respective affidavits that there is no other criminal case(s)

¶24

JATIN 2025.09.24 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-21022-2025 (O&M)

¶26

2

¶27

pending against them and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶28

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 01.07.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶29

(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:-

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(9) List before this Court on 30.07.2025 for further consideration.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, report dated 29.07.2025 from

¶40

Chief Judicial Magistrate Tarn Taran has been received, which is taken on

¶41

record. As per the report, the Trial Court has recorded as follows:-

¶42

“It is humbly submitted that vide its order dated 24.04.2025 passed in CRM-M-21022-2025 titled as "Uttam Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and others", Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the parties to appear before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for 01.07.2025, to get their statements recorded regarding compromise in FIR no.234 dated 21.07.2023, u/s 420, 406, 120B of IPC, PS City, Tarn Taran and the Court was directed to send its report along-with copies of the statements of the parties.

¶43

In compliance thereof, petitioners namely Uttam Singh, son of Kirpal Singh, resident of village Kaler, Tarn Taran, Manpreet Kaur, daughter of Uttam Singh, resident of village Kaler, Tarn Taran and Narinder Kaur, wife of Harpreet Singh, resident of House no.748, Gali Chanan Singh Wali, Mohalla Tankkushair, Ward no.16, Tarn Taran and complainants/respondents namely Mejar Singh, son of Santokh Singh, resident of village Malia, Tarn Taran and Manpreet Singh, son of Hardeep Singh, through his mother and general Power-of-Attorney holder Kulwant Kaur, wife of Hardeep Singh, resident of village Malia, Tarn Taran have come present in the Court on 01.07.2025 along-with their respective counsels and with their free will, voluntarily suffered statement with regard to compromise effected between them.”

¶44

JATIN 2025.09.24 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRM-M-21022-2025 (O&M)

¶46

3

¶47

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 admits the fact of parties having compromised and states that he has no objection in case the FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto against the petitioners are quashed.

¶48

Similarly, learned State counsel has stated no objection in case the FIR is quashed based upon the compromise (Annexure P-2).

¶49

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

¶50

This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly dealt with the issue of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash proceeding in non-compoundable offences in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2012(10) SCC 303, Kulwinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 and Ram Gopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 decided on 29th of September, 2021) . The proposition of law that emerges from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court is :

¶51

(a) Power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. vested with this Court is much wider and is unaffected by Section 320 of the Code.

¶52

(b) However, wider the power greater the caution. (c) The underlining principle while exercising such power is that it can be invoked to quash the proceedings recognizing compromise between the parties in the matters which are overwhelmingly and predominantly of civil character like commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes.

¶53

JATIN 2025.09.24 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

CRM-M-21022-2025 (O&M)

¶55

4

¶56

(d) The said power is not to be exercised in the prosecutions involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. as such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

¶57

(e) Section 482 Cr.P.C. casts duty upon the High Court to advance interest of justice as well. It is in recognition of this duty casted upon the High Court, that Apex Court held that the High Court would not refuse to quash FIR under Section 307 merely because FIR finds mention thereof. High Court can assess nature of injuries sustained, whether such injuries inflicted on vital/delicate parts of the body/nature of weapons used etc.

¶58

(f) Such exercise at the hands of High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and chargesheet is filed/charges framed during the trial. Such exercise cannot be carried out while the matter is still under investigation.

¶59

(g) While quashing FIR in non-compoundable offences even which are of private in nature, High Court is required to consider antecedents of the accused, conduct of the accused and whether he was absconding or whether he has managed the complainant to enter into a compromise.

¶60

The statutory provision of Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is same

¶61

as the statutory provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973. Therefore, the above said principles of law would apply to a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 as well.

¶62

JATIN 2025.09.24 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

CRM-M-21022-2025 (O&M)

¶64

5

¶65

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶66

this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested u/s 528 of BNSS,2023 to quash the FIR as :-

¶67

(i) Putting a quietus to the proceedings will bring peace and tranquility amongst parties & will accordingly further the cause of substantial justice.

¶68

(ii) The offences alleged are primarily of private nature.

¶69

(iii) The parties have compromised.

¶70

(iv) As per the report received the compromise is said to be voluntary in its nature.

¶71

(v) Complainant/victim is reported to have entered into compromise on his own volition.

¶72

Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR No.234 dated 21.07.2023

¶73

under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), are, hereby, quashed qua the petitioners.

¶74

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

¶75

(SUMEET GOEL)

¶76

JUDGE

¶77

24.09.2025 jatin

¶78

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

¶79

JATIN 2025.09.24 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Uttam Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Rohit Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Vs Sham Lal

Harsimran Kaur Sachdeva Vs State of Haryana

Sachin Verma Vs State of Haryana