Surajdeen Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No.45 dated 24.05.2024 (P-1), under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana, along with all

¶17

-1-

¶18

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶19

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶20

consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 18.06.2024 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

¶21

(2) Allegations are that petitioner fired a shot in the air, endangering life and personal safety of the de facto complainant as well as others.

¶22

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

¶23

(4) Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

(5) Still further, learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police official 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 i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2.

¶25

(6) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶26

(7) This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 23.01.2025, passed the following order:-

¶27

“Contends that matter has been compromised between the parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.2. (2) Notice of motion.

¶28

-2-

¶29

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶30

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶31

(3) At this stage, Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.

¶32

(4) Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondent No.2. He acknowledged the factum of compromise dated 18.06.2024 (P-2) arrived at between the parties at their own level.

¶33

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

¶34

(6) Petitioner shall file an affidavit that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against him and also give the details of any other FIR(s), already quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶35

(7) In view of the above, let parties appear before the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 20.02.2025 for recording their statement(s) with reference to the compromise, if any, entered into between them.

¶36

(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:-

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(9) List before this Court on 17.03.2025 for further consideration.

¶44

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

¶45

-3-

¶46

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶47

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶48

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

¶49

(8) In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and report dated 12.03.2025 has been received from learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Ludhiana. For reference, the operative part of the same reads as under:-

¶50

“Accordingly, the point wise report for the kind perusal of Hon'ble High Court is submitted as hereunder;

¶51

It is respectfully submitted that the statements of the respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner-accused are bonafide and are not result of any pressure or coercion etc. in any manner.

¶52

It is respectfully submitted that in view of the statements so suffered by the respondent No.2/complainant as well as petitioner-accused, it appears that the compromise so effected between the parties is genuine and valid.

¶53

It is respectfully submitted that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer ASI Jagpal Singh, accused and complainant are party to the compromise and there is no other aggrieved/injured person except the parties.

¶54

It is respectfully submitted that as per the statement of Investigating Officer ASI Jagpal Singh posted at PP Katani Kalan, PS Koom Kalan, accused and respondent No.2/complainant are not involved in any other criminal case.

¶55

-4-

¶56

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶57

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶58

It is respectfully submitted that as per the statement of IO ASI Jagpal Singh, persons involved in the instant case have not been declared as proclaimed offender.

¶59

It is respectfully, submitted that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, petitioner is not previously convicted in any case.”

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

“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

¶63

-5-

¶64

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶65

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶66

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

¶67

(10) 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

¶68

-6-

¶69

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶70

CRM-M-3623-2025 (O&M)

¶71

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.

¶72

(11) Consequently, present petition is allowed; aforesaid FIR along with all consequential proceedings resulting therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner. However, as a deterrence for the future, petitioner shall suffer costs of ` 50,000/-. Costs be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, Account No.37167209613, IFSC: SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh.

¶73

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

¶74

12^th May, 2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) Gagan JUDGE

¶75

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶76

-7-

¶77

GAGANDEEP 2025.05.13 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Surajdeen v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surajdeen v. State of Punjab and Anr.

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

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gyan Prakash Sarawgi Vs State of Haryana and Another

Sayed Zoheb Ahmad Vs State of Haryana

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Kirpal Singh Alias Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab