Allowed¶39

Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2025CRM-M/2276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on basis of compromise; inherent powers of High Court; Section 528 BNSS; Section 359 BNSS compounding; Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 para 61; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466; B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675; Kulwinder Singh Full Bench 2007(3) RCR 1052; Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; JMIC Amritsar report genuineness of compromise; Sections 324/323/452/354/506/148/149 IPC, Sections 34/326 IPC added; Police Station Chhatiwind, Amritsar; Punjab and Haryana High Court CRM-M 2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No.07 dated 14.01.2018 registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, on the basis of the compromise dated 09.12.2024. ¶39

Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.07 dated 14.01.2018 registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, could be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties by exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

When the parties have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be merely an abuse of process of the Court, and quashing the FIR secures the ends of justice, the primary object of Section 528 BNSS.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The parties having settled their dispute, the Court accepted the settlement to enhance the spirit of brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties, the trial court report having found the compromise genuine, voluntary and free of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.

¶37

Key takeaways

The case squarely falls within the ambit and parameters settled by judicial precedents; accordingly, FIR No.07 dated 14.01.2018 registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.ratio¶38
The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise and their statements recorded before the Court below.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Rajesh Bhardwaj, J., oral) — CRM-M-2276-2025, decided 05.08.2025: Petition invoking the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS allowed; FIR No.07 dated 14.01.2018 under Sections 324, 323, 452, 354, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 354, 148, 149 IPC deleted and Sections 34, 326 IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar, and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise dated 09.12.2024. JMIC, Amritsar report dated 21.07.2025 (pursuant to order dated 17.01.2025) found the compromise genuine, voluntary, without coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation; IO stated no accused was proclaimed offender and no other criminal case pending. Reliance placed on Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675, Full Bench ruling Kulwinder Singh 2007(3) RCR 1052, and Gian Singh (2012) 10 SCC 303 (para 61 parameters), with reference to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Section 359 BNSS (compounding) also noticed. Parties remain bound by the terms of the compromise and their statements before the Court below.

¶1

CRM-M-2276-2025

¶2

-1-

¶3

336 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-2276-2025 Date of Decision: 05.08.2025

¶5

Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal Singh and others

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

¶11

Present: Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vishnu Dutt, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ***

¶13

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of FIR No.07 dated 14.01.2018 under Sections 324, 323, 452, 354, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 354, 148, 149 IPC deleted and Sections 34, 326 IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 09.12.2024 (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 and thus, the FIR in question and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed in the interest of

¶15

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-2276-2025

-2-

justice.

This Court vide order dated 17.01.2025 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.

¶20

In pursuance to the same, learned JMIC, Amritsar has sent the report dated 21.07.2025 to this Court. With the report learned JMIC, Amritsar has also annexed the copy of statements of respondent No.2 namely, Harjinder Singh (complainant); respondent No.3 Rajwinder Kaur (victim), statements of petitioner No.1-Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal, petitioner No.2 Kulwant Singh @ Bau, petitioner No.3 Jaswant Singh @ Jassa, petitioner No.4 Kanwaljit Singh @ Kawaljit Singh and petitioner No.5 Sant Singh, recorded on 31.01.2025 and statement of SI, Jhirmal Singh, recorded 05.02.2025. On the basis of the statements, learned JMIC, Amritsar 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.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the report sent by the learned JMIC, Amritsar.

¶22

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 relevant for consideration, which prescribes the procedure for compounding of the PARVEEN KUMARoffences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2025.08.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CRM-M-2276-2025

¶24

-3-

¶25

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.

¶26

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:-

¶27

“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 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

¶28

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-2276-2025

¶30

-4-

¶31

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.”

¶32

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 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

¶33

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-2276-2025

¶35

-5-

¶36

primarily the object of the legislature enacting under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶37

Although present case pertains to an offence under Section 326 IPC yet good sense has prevailed upon the parties and they have settled the dispute and this Court accepts the settlement just to enhance the spirit of brotherhood, peace and harmony between the parties.

¶38

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.07 dated 14.01.2018 under Sections 324, 323, 452, 354, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 354, 148, 149 IPC deleted and Sections 34, 326 IPC added lateron) registered at Police Station Chhatiwind, District Amritsar 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.

¶39

12. Petition stands allowed.

¶40

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 05.08.2025 JUDGE

¶41

Parveen Kumar

¶42

Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶43

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.08.07 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guriqbal Singh @ Kikkar @ Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Virendra Kumar Sharma Alias Veeru Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

M/S Om Credit and Leasing Company Vs Rameshwar

Pawan Alias Bawalia Vs State of Haryana

Sachin Jain Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Chanchal Kumari Shukla Vs Ut Chd and Anr.