Allowed¶72

Balveer Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2025CRM-M/4441/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise; Section 528 BNSS inherent powers; FIR No. 265 dated 04.12.2017 PS Lambi Sri Muktsar Sahib; Sections 379 430 427 read with 34 IPC; damage to irrigation pipeline; theft of water; compromise dated 04.12.2024; JMFC Gidderbaha report dated 28.04.2025 bona fide genuine voluntary; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied upon; offence personal in nature; ends of justice; non-joinder of some complainants; deceased complainants; Punjab and Haryana High Court; decided 13.05.2025; Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR No.265 dated 04.12.2017 (PS Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off. ¶72

Balveer Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶72

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under Section 528 BNSS should be allowed, quashing FIR No.265 dated 04.12.2017 (registered at Police Station Lambi under Sections 379, 430, 427 read with Section 34 IPC) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of the compromise dated 04.12.2024 between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 12. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Applying the principle in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is fully convinced that 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 the compromise, would bring peace and harmony and secure the ends of justice.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the Judicial Magistrate's report shows that the matter has been compromised by both sides with their free consent, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence; even before this Court there is no objection by either side against each other.

¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M), decided 13.05.2025 (Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.) - Petition under S. 528 BNSS ALLOWED quashing FIR No. 265 dated 04.12.2017 (Ss. 379, 430, 427 r/w S. 34 IPC, PS Lambi, Distt. Sri Muktsar Sahib - alleged damage to irrigation pipeline and theft of water) and all consequential proceedings, qua the petitioners, on the basis of compromise dated 04.12.2024 (P-2) between petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 12. Verification: notice of motion 27.01.2025; statements recorded before Illaqa Magistrate; report dated 28.04.2025 of JMFC Gidderbaha found the statements bona fide and the compromise genuine, voluntary and without pressure, threat, coercion or undue influence; all four accused party to the compromise; no other case pending, no proclaimed offender, no previous convict; 12 of the 20 complainant-side persons not party to the compromise (three reported deceased; respondent No. 12, son of a deceased complainant, himself party); respondent Nos. 4 & 7 (Balvir Singh, Sadhu Singh) neither signatories to the complaint application nor joined in investigation nor cited as witnesses; State and complainant-side raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held the offence entirely personal in nature, not affecting public peace or tranquility, and that quashing would secure the ends of justice; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶2

129

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.05.2025

¶5

Balveer Singh and others

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU

¶11

Present: Mr. APS Sidhu, Advocate for

¶12

Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

Mr. Rohan Garg, Advocate for Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 12.

¶15

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

¶16

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.265 dated 04.12.2017, under Sections 379, 430, 427 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise dated 04.12.2024 (P-2), entered into between the parties i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 12.

¶17

Allegations are that petitioners in furtherance of their common intention caused damage to the pipeline for irrigating fields and also committed theft of water from said pipeline.

¶18

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-1-

¶20

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶21

Contends that matter has been amicably settled between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 12; hence FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 12 has also acknowledged the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.

¶23

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.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook.

¶25

This Court, while issuing notice of motion on 27.01.2025, passed the following order:-

¶26

“ Contends, inter alia, that matter has been compromised between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 12.

¶27

(2) Notice of motion.

¶28

(3) At this stage, Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, learned A.A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State. (4) Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, causes representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 12 and acknowledges the factum of compromise between the parties, i.e. petitioners as well as respondent Nos.2 to 12.

¶29

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

¶30

(6) Petitioners shall file their respective affidavits that there is no other criminal case(s) pending against them and

¶31

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

-2-

¶33

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶34

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 17.02.2025 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 18.03.2025 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

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

¶46

In terms of aforesaid order, statements of both the parties were recorded and a report dated 28.04.2025 has been received from learned

¶47

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

-3-

¶49

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶50

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha. For reference, the operative part of report reads as under:-

¶51

“ i. In the given circumstances, I am satisfied that statements of both the parties appear to be bona fide and not result of any pressure or coercion etc. to any manner.

¶52

ii. The compromise effected between the parties appears to be genuine, voluntary and without any pressure, threat, coercion or undue influence.

¶53

iii. The present FIR was registered on the basis of application dated 30.11.2017 moved by 18 persons namely Gurmail Singh, Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jag Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nachattar Singh, Rupinder Singh, Rashpal Singh. Achar Singh, Iqbal Singh, Kulwant Singh, Baldev Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, Vahavdeep Singh, Ram Singh, Gursharan Singh and cashier Baljit Singh During investigation, statements of Daljit Singh son of Kuldeep Singh and Rajwinder Singh son of Hardeep Singh were also recorded who were also co sharers in the pipeline. Out of these 20 persons, 8 persons namely Gurmail Singh. Achat Singh, Baljit Singh, Baldev Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Gursharan Singh. Daljit Singh and Vishavdeep Singh are arrayed as respondent no 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 11 in the petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court The remaining 12 complainant/aggrieved persons namely Jag Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nachattar Singh, Rupinder Singh, Rashpal Singh, Iqhal Singh, Kulwant Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Hardeep Singh, Ram Singh, cashier Bajit Singh and Rajwinder Singh son of Hardeep Singh are not party to the compromise. However, respondent no. 2, 3, 5,6 and 8 to 11 have stated that Rashpal Singh, Iqbal Singh and Kulwant Singh harve expired Respondent no. 12 Gurpreet Singh is the son of deceased Kashwant Singh who is also party to the compromise.

¶54

It is also pertinent to mention here that Balvir Singh and Sadhu Singh are also arrayed as respondent no. 4 and

¶55

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

-4-

¶57

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶58

7 respectively in the petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court claiming themselves to be co-sharers in the pipeline but neither they are signatory to the application dated 30.11.2017 nor they were joined into investigation or cited as a witness in the list of prosecution witnesses.

¶59

The present FIR was registered against accused Balveer Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Manjinder Singh and all of them are party to the compromise. iv. As per the statements of respondents, petitioners and Investigating Officer, no other case is pending against either of the party.

¶60

v. As per the statements of respondents, petitioners and Investigating Officer, none of the persons involved in this case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender. vi. As per the statement of petitioners and Investigating Officer, none of the petitioners is a previous convict.”

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

“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

¶64

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

-5-

¶66

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶67

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 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.”

¶68

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 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.

¶69

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶70

-6-

¶71

CRM-M-4441-2025 (O&M)

¶72

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

¶73

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

¶74

13.05.2025 Harish Kumar		(MAHABIR SINGH JUDGE	SINDHU)
	Whether speaking/ reasoned	: Yes /	No
	Whether reportable	: Yes /	No

¶75

HARISH KUMAR 2025.05.15 08:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

-7-

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR No.265 dated 04.12.2017, under Sections 379, 430, 427 read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom - sought to be quashed on the basis of compromise dated 04.12.2024 (P-2).¶16
Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib · 04.12.2017
Prior proceeding
Allegations underlying the FIR: petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, caused damage to the pipeline used for irrigating fields and committed theft of water from it.¶17
Prior proceeding
Compromise dated 04.12.2024 (P-2) entered into between the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 12; petition filed for quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings on its basis.¶16
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 12 acknowledged the petitioners' contention that the matter has been amicably settled.¶22
Prior proceeding
Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the police officer present, was not averse to quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings on the basis of the compromise.¶23
Prior proceeding
Court issued notice of motion on 27.01.2025, directing affidavits regarding other criminal cases/quashed FIRs, appearance of parties before the Illaqa Magistrate, and a six-point report (bona fides of statements; genuineness of compromise; participation of all concerned; other pending cases; proclaimed offenders; previous convicts); State to obtain instructions; listed for 18.03.2025.¶25
Prior proceeding
Parties directed to appear before learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court on or before 17.02.2025 for recording of their statements with reference to the compromise.¶35
Prior proceeding
In terms of the notice-of-motion order, statements of both parties were recorded and a report dated 28.04.2025 was received from learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gidderbaha.¶46
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: statements of both parties appear bona fide and not the result of any pressure or coercion.¶51
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: compromise effected between the parties appears genuine, voluntary and without any pressure, threat, coercion or undue influence.¶52
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: the FIR was registered on the basis of an application dated 30.11.2017 moved by 18 named persons (including Gurmail Singh, Baljit Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jag Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nachattar Singh, Rupinder Singh, Rashpal Singh and others).¶53
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: during investigation, statements of Daljit Singh s/o Kuldeep Singh and Rajwinder Singh s/o Hardeep Singh, who were also co-sharers in the pipeline, were recorded.¶53
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: of the 20 persons having interest, 8 (including Vishavdeep Singh) are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 11 in the petition filed before the High Court.¶53
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: the remaining 12 complainant/aggrieved persons are not party to the compromise; respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 11 stated that Rashpal Singh, Iqbal Singh and Kulwant Singh have expired; respondent No.12 Gurpreet Singh, son of a deceased complainant, is himself party to the compromise.¶53
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: Balvir Singh and Sadhu Singh, arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 7, claim to be co-sharers in the pipeline but are neither signatories to the application dated 30.11.2017, nor were joined in the investigation, nor cited as prosecution witnesses.¶58
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: all four accused named in the FIR - Balveer Singh, Jagdish Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Manjinder Singh - are party to the compromise.¶59
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: as per statements of respondents, petitioners and the Investigating Officer, no other case is pending against either party.¶59
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: none of the persons involved in the case/dispute has been declared a proclaimed offender.¶60
Prior proceeding
JMFC Gidderbaha report: none of the petitioners is a previous convict.¶60

Balveer Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balveer 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

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surajdeen Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab

Sahil Alias Pava Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Gurlal Singh Alias Bhangu and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.